NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews

Thursday, May 23, 2019 

The Subcommittee convened via teleconference, at 

10:30 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Dave 

Kotelchuck, Chair, presiding. 
2 

Members Present: 

David Kotelchuck, Chair

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Liz Brackett, ORAU Team

Ron Buchanan, SC&A

Nicole Briggs, SC&A

Grady Calhoun, DCAS

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A

Jenny Naylor, HHS

Beth Rolfes, DCAS

Mutty Sharfi, ORAU Team

Scott Siebert, ORAU Team

Matt Smith, ORAU Team

John Stiver, SC&A
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Subcommittee on 

Dose Reconstruction Reviews Thursday, May 23, 

2019 1

Call to Order 4

Rerunning of IREP Iterations for Completed 

Blind Review Sets 5

Review Set 26 Blind Dose Reconstruction 

Cases 13

Review Cases from Sets 25 78

Adjourn 108
4

Proceedings

(10:32 a.m.)

Call to Order

Mr. Katz: Okay, preliminaries. The Advisory Board 

on Radiation and Worker Health Dose 

Reconstruction Review Subcommittee. 

David Kotelchuck, Dr. Kotelchuck is the Chair and 

he's present. And along with him we have Josie 

Beach and Brad Clawson and Loretta Valerio. And 

we will not have David Richardson, Dr. Richardson, 

but we are expecting Jim Lockey to join us.

Let me just make a note about conflicts of interest 

with the Members because we have cases from 

different sites. So please Members, remember what 

your conflicts are and don't speak -- Dave 

Kotelchuck has no conflicts so when he asks for 

other Member's opinions on cases if it's a case for a 

site where you're conflicted please just hold off on 

that one and that will work.

And I can just mention up front for Brad it's INL, for 

Josie Beach it's Hanford, for Jim Lockey there are an 

assortment of sites. A lot of them are the Tennessee 

sites, Oak Ridge sites as well as Fernald in Ohio.

And let's see. David Kotelchuck has no sites, no 

conflicts for sites. That should take care of it for 

now.

Loretta has the -- in particular the New Mexico sites 

and a few others other than that because she deals 

with cases that cross state borders.

So anyway, just recall your conflicts when we're in 

discussion.

Okay. And the agenda for today's meeting is posted 

on the NIOSH website. There are no materials. 

They're all full of Privacy Act information for the 

most part so there are no materials posted.
5

Moving on from that let's see what else I need to 

cover. Actually, that takes care of it other than I'll 

do roll call for the rest of the crew.

Chair Kotelchuck: Now, Ted, we do have a quorum, 

do we not?

Mr. Katz: We do have a quorum already. I'll check 

on Lockey after I do roll call for the rest of the 

group. So let's go for NIOSH ORAU group, who do 

we have on?

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: And with that just let me remind everyone 

to mute your phone except when you're talking, *6 

if you don't have a mute button.

And Dave, it's your meeting.

Rerunning of IREP Iterations for Completed Blind 

Review Sets

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. So, let's start 

on the first item on the issue of possibly considering 

rerunning of IREP iterations for the completed blind 

review sets.

Folks will remember we've had a lot of discussions 

about this, but let me summarize a bit.

I think the Subcommittee Members and staff looked 

into the blind case where we had apparently a 

different compensation decision after the runs from 

NIOSH and SC&A. 

And we've seemed to realize that -- the 

Subcommittee Members at least came to realize 

that the IREPs were being run differently.

And you'll remember that NIOSH as they had been 

doing for some time, I'm not sure forever, but for 

some time have been -- were feeding their data into 

IREP and for 30 runs of 10,000 iterations each.

And we came to realize, as we Subcommittee 
6

Members, certainly I just as an individual came to 

realize that SC&A was not running it that way. They 

didn't have access to the enterprise edition of IREP 

and they were running one run of 2,000 iterations.

So after SC&A you'll remember last July it was 

actually, after SC&A received -- got access to the 

enterprise edition that the Subcommittee instructed 

SC&A to run future -- that with NIOSH.

That was at that time the 28th line, two of which 

were run a long time ago and all the rest have been 

run in these years certainly while I've been on the 

Board.

A question. How do we want to handle the early 

blinds, or the first 27 or 25 of those 27 blinds. 

And also by the way the side question for me was 

whether -- for Set 26 have the folks in SC&A been 

running the full 30 runs and 10,000 iterations. I just 

didn't know. I mean, I didn't know what stage --

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, we have been running all of them 

for the entire time. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, great. Ever since 28. Are 

they W.R. Grace one that we?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, beginning with case B33 which 

was the start of the 26th set.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, okay, fine. So all the 26. 

Good. But question folks is for the Subcommittee 

folks is what do we want to do about the early 

blinds. They were run slightly differently.

And you'll remember that they were a compensation 

decision. We were in full agreement except for that 

one case and when that one case was rerun again I 

think it -- with the data I think Scott reran it and

showed that in fact the compensation decisions 

were the same if they ran the -- if they ran the 

SC&A data on IREP for the 30 runs.

So I wonder what folks want to do. I have opinions 
7

and thoughts about it. On the other hand I'd like to 

open it up to -- do people feel that it is of value to 

rerun the earlier iterations. And obviously we're 

talking about a lot of work and time.

But the question is is this a value to us in terms of 

our understanding of the blinds and how well we are 

doing dose reconstructions similarly by the two 

folks, NIOSH and SC&A.

Thoughts or comments?

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. We've never 

really been that far off.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: We're relatively short. I don't 

think going back and doing this would buy us 

anything. But fast forward we want to do the best, 

you know, the closest we can to everything.

I would suggest from this point on that we continue 

and do it the same. I don't think that going back is 

going to buy us anything particularly.

We didn't see any real big problems.

Chair Kotelchuck: We certainly did not at all.

Member Clawson: But that's my opinion.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Well, I appreciate that. I've 

come to share it. At first I wanted to rerun it 

because I wanted to see how really close our PoCs 

were. I wanted to assess that.

Folks have raised questions as to whether that's 

even a worthwhile effort. But now thinking about all 

that would be involved in going back I'm also of the 

same opinion, Brad, that we just don't gain 

anything.

We've in fact made a big improvement in our blind 
8

cases effort and I see no great point in going back.

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. I think we did 

rerun the one that we had the differences on and 

that would have been my main concern.

But if there are no others that show a big difference 

between the two I am in agreement with both you 

and Brad on this one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Loretta?

Member Valerio: I agree with everything that Brad 

said.

The other thought I had was if there are multiple 

cancers and at least one of those falls under the 

SEC is there really value both time and cost to rerun 

the IREP iterations.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't think we're running any --

we haven't run any that were in an SEC. Or I should 

say that weren't -- I mean, the only ones, blind 

reviews we've done are ones where we had almost 

all the best estimate. So we didn't run ones that 

went through the SEC and we'd have to redo them 

again.

Member Valerio: So what I meant, Dave, was if they 

have multiple cancers and one of the cancers is an 

SEC cystitis cancer but the others are maybe 

multiple skin cancers that's what I'm talking about.

Mr. Katz: Loretta, just to explain, if it were a case 

that's compensated should be SEC then it would by 

definition be a partial DR because there's some 

doses that can't be reconstructed.

And those I don't think -- and correct me, I don't 

think those would be collected and given for blind 

reviews in the first case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I don't believe we've had a 

partial DR of blind reviews.

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. The only way we would 
9

do that is if in fact we ran a query and they ended 

up between 45 and 52 percent. But I can't recall 

one that we did but maybe we have.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Valerio: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: So I think we're in agreement on 

that. Is Jim Lockey on by the way? I don't know if 

he might be coming. We think he might be coming.

So, I think we have an agreement on that. And as I 

say thinking about -- I've changed my mind over 

time. I'm onboard with everybody else.

So, should we say formally that we will adopt this 

now as confirming the decision that we did last time 

to go forward with both IREP runs by SC&A and 

NIOSH identical? And we will not go back and redo 

the earlier ones for which we did not see any 

serious problems except one was resolved.

Ms. Gogliotti: Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: On that note we had discussed 

previously that we would not revise the W.R. Grace 

case until this was discussed. 

Do you want us to revise that case? Would you 

prefer to do a memo? The comparison. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, I'll tell you, we would like to 

put the table into the report. And I think it would be 

-- I would like to see that rerun or let's put it this 

way.

If Scott, if you took the data from SC&A and you 

ran it on an IREP and you got a result at that point 

that agreed with your initial run, if you have that I 

don't even see the need to rerun it if you've already 

done what SC&A would have to do.

Mr. Siebert: I will look through my files, but I'm 
10

sure I can come up with that. What would you like, 

what the value was or?

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. I would like to know what 

the PoC was when you ran it in the -- as we are now 

running all blinds cases.

Mr. Siebert: Absolutely. I can get that information 

over to Grady for you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, great. That sounds perfect. 

Then I don't see, Rose, I don't see any need to 

rerun.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: We will put that in our table and 

we'll obviously make note that from then on or 

actually the next couple we still had the old run. We 

may need to put a little asterisk in the -- in what we 

put in the report. But we can handle that. That's a 

technical.

Basically it's done. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. For my own clarification you're 

not expecting any further documentation on that 

case from SC&A.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, I don't think so. Unless 

anybody else have any thoughts? I don't see any 

need for it. Thank you for asking.

Mr. Katz: Yeah and this is Ted. As long as it's 

documented in the report that we put together and 

has the right PoC by it that works for me too. That 

makes sense. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright. So, I think we're 

ready to go on now.

As folks know we are skipping discussion of the 

draft Secretary's report. I believe all the 

Subcommittee Members got a copy of my first draft. 
11

And Ted and Jenny worked on that. 

There are apparently even some legal issues and a 

lot of editorial changes which I've taken a look at 

and certainly agree with.

We'd like to -- I would like to work with Ted, deal 

with some of those and send you a cleaner copy 

where the decisions that we have left are policy 

decisions for the Subcommittee consideration and 

then Board consideration. 

So, we're going to drop that a little bit. There will be 

issues of timing because I don't know if we can get 

another meeting in with the draft, the new draft, 

draft 2 before our meeting in August.

But let's deal with that later.

Member Lockey: Hey, Ted?

Mr. Katz: Yes. Oh, Jim Lockey's on.

Chair Kotelchuck: Jim, how are you.

Member Lockey: Sorry, the password I got wasn't 

working. It works now.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Mr. Katz: We're glad to have you, Jim.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, we are. By the way, in your 

absence we did talk about item 1 and all of us felt

that there was no real value in rerunning the IREP 

iterations from before that number 28, the one from 

W.R. Grace.

We're now doing -- both groups are doing the same 

input into IREP, the same number of runs and 

iterations.

Member Lockey: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good, good. Okay, fine. 

So, just finishing the comments about that we're 
12

going to hold the draft Secretary report until we go 

through a number of both editorial changes and of 

course if there are any issues, legal issues which 

Jenny posed then that certainly has to come first. 

We must be legally -- all the legal issues and 

statements that have legal implications have to be 

made properly.

So we are now ready to go to Set 26 blind dose 

reconstruction cases. And we have a lot of cases 

and challenging ones at that I think. Some of them.

So, how would you like to proceed?

Ms. Gogliotti: If it's okay with you I think we should 

just go down in order of blind number. Is that okay?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. That sounds fine.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, and before we get started on 

this I just want to point out that we did these a little 

bit differently from what we've done in the past.

As a result of a meeting we had last fall with the 

Dose Reconstruction Methods Subcommittee, the 

Work Group I believe, we decided to add an 

additional section to these reports that highlights 

the biggest professional judgment differences that 

were made in the case or sometimes the same.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: So you will see that under the 

different --

Chair Kotelchuck: Absolutely. And if I may say I 

found those most useful and a very nice addition to 

what we're doing. I'm sure that we will talk about 

that -- I would like to talk about that in the report 

that we turn in. But we'll come to that later.

Okay, great. Thanks.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. So we'll start off with West 

Valley.
13

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, great.

Ms. Gogliotti: Ron, I believe you're on the line?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes, this is Ron Buchanan.

Ms. Gogliotti: Can everyone see my screen?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great. Thanks.

Mr. Calhoun: Right now all I see is the cover page of 

the report to the Advisory Board.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's not a blind comparison? 

Member Beach: I'm not seeing it either.

Mr. Calhoun: No, I don't see it.

Ms. Gogliotti: It shows that I'm sharing it. 

Mr. Calhoun: Wait, I guess this is it. Now I see an 

index or something.

Ms. Gogliotti: Do you see the table of contents 

currently?

Mr. Calhoun: Yes I do. I got it. I got it now. Thank 

you.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great.

Mr. Katz: Scrolling. Very good. 

Review Set 26 Blind Dose Reconstruction Cases

Dr. Buchanan: Okay, Rose, if you're controlling the 

projector there I'm working off my copy that's 

marked up here on my screen. So I'll just tell you 

what page I'm on and if you'll go to that page then 

they can follow along.

I'm on page 7. And you see this is the West Valley 

demonstration project in West Valley, New York.

This was an original dose reconstruction. It was 
14

done in October of 2017 and then SC&A was 

charged with a review of this case in Set 26 and 

they completed their report in October of 2018.

Now, both DR methods used estimates of doses that 

resulted in PoCs greater than 50 percent. That's for 

the multiples of compensation.

And when I go through this discussion I'll just use 

the term party rather than parties, meaning NIOSH 

and SC&A rather than repeat that phrase each time.

We go to page 8. We list the comparison of some of 

the doses and the type of doses that were assigned. 

We see that both parties assigned recorded dose, 

missed dose and internal dose.

The worker fortunately was monitored for external, 

deep and shallow dose and for -- and bioassays for 

internal dose.

You see the worker had a number of cancers, skin 

cancers and a cancer that was non-skin.

As we go down to page 10 we see that we list in 

Table 2-1 there we list the cancers, the skin cancers 

and the non-skin cancers.

As we go to page 11 Table 2-2 we compare some of 

the data and assumptions made by both parties. 

And what I'll do is emphasize, just kind of cover the 

differences as an overview and then go into more 

detail as we go through the individual section of the 

report.

As we did -- there's a little dash to the right there 

and so I won't discuss those. I'll just highlight the 

differences.

The recorded photon dose was done pretty much 

the same by both parties. The missed photon dose 

was done very similar except for SC&A assigned the 

photon energy into two ranges, a 30 to 250 keV at 

25 percent and a greater than 250 keV at 35 

percent for the missed photon dose. That was the 
15

main difference there.

We see at the bottom of that table missed shallow 

dose. SC&A assigned 30 percent of the shallow dose 

to the non-cancer -- excuse me, the non-skin 

cancer and NIOSH did not assign a shallow dose to 

that organ.

You see on page 12 that for internal dose that 

NIOSH used OTIB-54 and the TBD values for SC&A 

used just the TBD values for intakes.

NIOSH used urine and the in vivo counting and 

SC&A used just the urine counting for some of the 

mixed fission products.

That takes us to the details on page 13 where we 

start talking about external dose. We see that both 

NIOSH and SC&A used a dose conversion factor of 1 

for the skin recognized -- by OTIB-17 and used the 

appropriate dose conversion factors for the non-skin 

cancer according to IG-001.

Now, the difference there, we got identical doses 

and used the same data and everything except 

NIOSH applied Monte Carlo calculations to the dose 

conversion factor and came out with slightly 

different doses but very similar. And so that was the 

main difference in the recorded dose, the photon 

dose.

The recorded shallow dose. The worker was 

monitored for shallow dose. So both parties 

assigned it using the correct values. And an 

attenuation factor for clothing of 0.855 for covered 

areas according to OTIB-17.

And was assigned as 100 percent greater than 15 

keV electrons. And so we agreed with that and 

assigned slightly different doses because one of the 

sites, NIOSH took some consideration of extremity 

dose for part of the arm dose and SC&A did not fold 

that information in. And so NIOSH assigned a 

slightly higher dose to one of the sites. But other 

than that very similar results.
16

Now, we look at missed photon dose starting on 

page 13 and continuing on page 14. And you see 

that NIOSH assigned missed photon dose using a 

dose conversion factor of 1 for the skin. And the 

appropriate dose conversion factor depend on the 

various details for dose equivalent for the non-skin 

organ. And assigned a missed photon dose as 100 

percent 30 to 250 keV photons.

SC&A did very similar calculations except that they 

divided it at 25, 75 percent on the photon dose and 

used the appropriate dose conversion factors for 

that. And so that was the main difference there on 

missed photon dose, dividing it up into two energies 

as was done in recorded dose that SC&A used.

Missed shallow dose. I'm on page 14. We had a 

system where you had open window and you had a 

shielded window on the dosimetry readings and so 

the criteria that both parties used was as in the TBD 

stated. If only the acid reading was -- reported as 

zero you recorded as a missed dose for details. If 

both the open window and the shielded window 

reported as zero you assigned it as a nonpenetrating dose. 

And so both parties followed that convention. 

We see there at the bottom of page 14 NIOSH 

applied a clothing attenuation factor and a skin dose 

conversion factor of 1. And did not assign missed 

shallow dose to the non-skin organ.

On page 15 we see that SC&A did similar dose 

assignment but additionally the 30 percent of the 

shallow dose to the non-skin organ. According to 

their interpretation of OTIB-17 page 18.

So, we see that there in Section 3-5 the 

unmonitored photon shallow dose, there was no 

need to assign any coworker dose because the 

worker was monitored and so neither party assigned 

an unmonitored dose.

The neutron dose, West Valley. The job description 
17

for this worker probably did not present significant 

neutron dose. Neither party assigned any sort of 

neutron dose for this case. We agree on that.

And then in Section 3-7 had occupational medical 

dose, see that X-rays were taken offsite for all West 

Valley employees and so there was no X-ray dose 

assigned by either parties. 

So that covers some of the details of the external 

dose assignments and comparisons.

Now if we go to page 16 we go to Section 4 we look 

at the internal. And the EE did have a number of 

bioassays for uranium, plutonium, americium, 

strontium and cesium.

And the uranium bioassays were used by NIOSH to 

assign uranium thorium intake using a 2 percent 

enrichment in the specific activity of 1.6 picocuries 

per microgram and found a type after uranium 

resulting in highest dose that was used.

They looked at acute and chronic intakes and 

assigned a dose each year that provided for the 

highest overall dose to the organs.

Now, I would like to state that the TBD does not 

state the specific activity of the uranium enrichment 

and so we see on page 17 that SC&A used a specific 

activity of 2.2649 picocuries per microgram as 

recommended in the Hanford site which supplied a

lot of the uranium process. West Valley was a fuel 

reprocessing demonstration plant. They took in 

spent fuel and reprocessed, separating off the good 

uranium and such.

And so we used -- SC&A used the Hanford site 

information. So again of course this is higher 

specific activity so it led to indicate an overall 

greater intake of activity resulting in slightly greater 

dose.

For this SC&A also found that the site past uranium 

provided for the greatest dose and was used. And 
18

compared the chronic and acute, and using slightly 

higher specific activity found that the acute annual 

doses provided for the greatest dose and was 

assigned in IREP tables.

Similar but slightly different assumptions of specific 

activity.

Next is on page 17. The plutonium and uranium, 

americium intake. Section 4.2. And now there both 

NIOSH and SC&A did use the bioassay data. 

Unfortunately bioassay data did not specify the 

radionuclide of the plutonium.

In this case NIOSH chose to use plutonium-238 and 

look at the acute and chronic intake and assign 

doses accordingly.

Or as SC&A assumed a Pu-239 bioassay adjusted 

for the daily 1.4 liters per day and derived the Type 

S plutonium as the same as NIOSH used Type S, 

plutonium-238.

And the annual dose was assigned as a chronic 

intake, analyzed and assigned chronic intake in the 

IREP tables. So the main difference was the 

selection of the type of plutonium since it wasn't 

specified.

So, if we go to page 18 then we go to the strontium 

and cesium fission activation products. The worker 

was monitored for strontium and cesium intake 

periodically and had several positive values.

So, for the strontium intake NIOSH used a NUMA 

program to evaluate the urine data. And OTIB-54 up 

to the year 2000. 

There's two ways to address strontium intake at 

West Valley. You can use OTIB-54 or you can use 

the recommended TBD values in Table 5-10.

So NIOSH used the OTIB-54 with strontium as the 

indicator up until the year 2000, through 1999, and 

assigned according to that results. And then used 
19

the results from 2000 onward in Table 5-10 to 

assign fission activation products.

In contrast SC&A assigned strontium intake using 

purely the Table 5-10 in the TBD for West Valley as 

opposed to incorporating any of the OTIB-54 for any 

of the time period.

So those were the two differences in the strontium 

assignment. The result was slightly different in 

doses, but small compared to the alpha emitters of 

course.

At the bottom of page 18 you see we also address 

the cesium intake. The cesium intake had a urine 

bioassay result and also some in vivo results.

NIOSH looked at the urine bioassay results and 

compared them to the in vivo bioassay results and 

used the in vivo which capped the possible intake. 

And so it limited the amount that could be assigned, 

still get those results in the in vivo and so NIOSH 

assigned that.

Whereas SC&A took the approach that the urine 

data would be used and used that data for cesium 

to assign it the doses which would result in a 

slightly higher dose. Again, not significantly 

compared to the alpha emitters.

So we see that on page 19 there we address the 

radiological incidents. We see that both parties 

addressed several incidents that took place.

And in view of the recorded data that the worker 

was monitored internally and externally while 

working there that they did not impact the dose 

reconstruction.

In addition, NIOSH identified a few other incidents 

in the records of dosimeter and nation advance. 

SC&A did not address but did not impact the dose 

reconstruction.

Okay, so this brings us to the new section on page 
20

20 and that's Section 5, decision points required 

professional judgment which we were asked to 

make a summarized list of it.

And so these judgments are listed there and as we 

briefly discuss, we discussed all these but this 

summarizes it. 

The assignment of shallow dose, the non-skin 

organ. SC&A assigned 30 percent of the shallow 

dose to the non-skin organ which resulted in some 

additional dose assignment.

And when it came to the skin there are obviously 

some places on the face and such are open and not 

closed, covered with cloth. However, on the side, 

the arms and stuff there could be areas of debate. 

And in this case there's a slight difference in that we 

both used -- both parties used the cloth attenuation 

factor on some of the organs.

However, SC&A assumed two organs were covered 

while NIOSH assumed four. And so again slightly 

greater dose that SC&A assigned to some of the 

skin in this case.

So it would make about a 14 and a half percent 

difference in dose assignment.

Now assignment of internal dose. As we just 

discussed this is the judgment on the enrichment of 

the uranium at West Valley.

And the interpretation of plutonium results that it 

was 238 or Pu-239. So when it comes to bioassays 

there are some areas that require some judgment 

and you can see here that we pointed this out here.

So that brings us to the summary on page 21 that 

compares the doses and the PoCs, Table 6-1. And 

we see that the doses and PoCs are very similar. 

Both of them were greater than 50 percent. And so 

eligible for compensation.

And the modest difference in some of the 
21

external/internal sites arose from items we just 

discussed on the external/internal dose 

assignments.

Are there any questions?

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. I had one question. In 

the issues of plutonium, I'm just curious why 238 

versus 239?

Dr. Buchanan: It wasn't specified, the plutonium 

bioassay, and it wasn't specified the radioisotope. 

And so when the dose reconstructor performed it 

they assumed one or the other. And so this is what 

happened.

Member Lockey: And so professional judgment is 

which way to go with that? Is that correct?

Dr. Buchanan: That's correct.

Member Lockey: Okay.

Member Beach: This is Josie. That was in line with 

my question also.

Is there any reason to use 38 over 39? I guess I'm 

wondering in a professional judgment situation why 

did you choose 39 versus the 38. Ron?

Dr. Buchanan: No, I don't know. Doug did this, so --

Member Beach: Oh, Doug did. Okay.

Dr. Buchanan: Yes. I don't know why he chose 39.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I can tell you why we 

used 238. It's based on the values in the TBD and 

the tables of the breakdown in plutonium mixture. 

The activity fraction of 238 is larger than the 239. 

It's the majority component. So that's why we 

normally use that for the same processes.

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. One other question. In 

your shift to shallow dose for the test is that -- does 
22

NIOSH normally calculate shallow dose with 

relationship to breast cancer or not?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott again. Yes, the information 

is in OTIB-17. However, there is also direction in 

OTIB-17 that if it's a likely compensable claim that 

portion of the assessment does not need to be 

conducted. So we did not conduct it.

If it had come out less than 50 percent we would 

have assessed that portion of the shallow dose as 

well.

Member Lockey: I see. So because it was over 50 

percent you found no need to go ahead and do that.

Mr. Siebert: That is correct.

Member Lockey: Okay, I understand. But normally if 

the PoC is under 50 percent you would have done it.

Mr. Siebert: That is correct.

Member Lockey: Okay. Perfect.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Hi, I'm just going to suggest going 

forward -- I mean, we've already started with this 

case, but going forward it might be just efficient if 

after SC&A does its presentation of the blind case 

since the NIOSH ORAU folks haven't had a chance 

to respond if they can address then the professional 

judgment matters. And then the Board Members 

can weigh in.

And then a lot of the Board Member's questions will 

probably get answered without them having to ask 

the questions. 

Member Lockey: Yes, Ted, but we like to ask 

questions.

Member Clawson: Some people like to show up late 

too to everything, but you know. We want to do the 

best we can, Mr. Lockey.
23

Member Lockey: Okay I'll shut up now.

Chair Kotelchuck: This is Dave. I wondered -- first, I 

really, I said before, I really like the new section on 

professional judgment.

But it does seem to me that the NIOSH folks might 

have different opinions about what areas really were 

professional judgment. There is a value to adding 

on their input, or getting their input on these 

assignments and then the next step it seems to me 

is that as soon as these blind cases pass from our 

consideration it would be valuable to have some 

sort of record of the types of professional judgment, 

or a listing of them.

For the moment they seem totally all over the map. 

And they will be for quite a while. After a while as 

we develop more and more blinds and more and 

more of these I hope that we'll see patterns 

develop. 

And those patterns could be considered probably by 

the Methods group, the DRR Methods group and 

that will help inform any changes we might want to 

make, or any improvements in the process.

So, I would -- right now looking at the six blinds 

that we're dealing with today I don't see how to 

make a sensible listing, that is, a nice format.

And I would wonder, I'd like to suggest if others 

from the Subcommittee agree that folks from SC&A 

give some thought to how -- to a listing that would 

make sense and help build up a body of data that 

we can then come back to and look at after the first 

6, 12, 18 blinds going forward.

Is that something that others think would be useful?

Member Beach: Yes, I think that's a great idea, 

Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't think it will be easy. And 

so I'm not saying -- I have no idea what the format 
24

would be. And I would be open to suggestions from 

SC&A about what would be a good format for that. 

Not just the program, but the kind of format.

Ms. Gogliotti: We'll brainstorm and I'll give you 

some ideas and you can let us know what you like.

Chair Kotelchuck: That would be great. That would 

be great.

Ms. Gogliotti: And I do want to point out that those 

are only professional judgment differences that 

resulted in dose differences.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Ms. Gogliotti: The most impactful in a case.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Right. And I agree, they 

are the salient ones. There are lots of small -- I've 

noticed that too. I mean, there are a lot of small 

differences that really are inconsequential. And 

there's no great point in adding those.

But do we need -- and folks, this is -- I'm asking 

everybody. Do we need some NIOSH input about 

the decision on professional judgments? 

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey. I think NIOSH input 

would be valued. I think from the scientific 

perspective professional judgment is a valid 

approach to take when there's not enough data to 

make a decision to go one way or the other. If both 

NIOSH and SC&A agree on that then we can leave 

that alone. But each circumstance is going to be 

somewhat different. 

If it's a real disagreement about professional 

judgment, which direction they went, then that has 

to be resolved.

Chair Kotelchuck: That sounds right. So the issue --

that NIOSH before the four blinds -- the professional 

judgment on the blinds get listed in the SC&A 

database there needs to be an agreement by either 

Grady or Scott as you decide.
25

But NIOSH needs to weigh in before we put it in. 

Mr. Katz: This is Ted. In terms of process it's just 

like resolution of other issues. I think you need 

NIOSH's input and then you need the Subcommittee 

to consider where there are differences between the 

ultimate opinion of NIOSH and SC&A about whether 

something is a professional judgment in the first 

place.

I mean, you need the Subcommittee to oversee that 

resolution of those differences.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Certainly that's a good 

process. 

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. And I would just have to 

look to see -- it would kind of be nice to see what 

Rose puts forward and then we could see what kind 

of effort and how we could do that in the next blind.

Chair Kotelchuck: That would be good. The main 

thing is that you have input, that there's something 

in your process such that SC&A will hear from you 

or your designated person that all's well and go on 

and list it. And if not you'll inform me and Ted that 

there's an issue and it should come before the 

Subcommittee.

Mr. Katz: This is Ted. I think just for transparency's 

sake I think the best route would be for -- I mean, if 

NIOSH contests a they have identified those needs 

only identifying the ones for which there's 

substantial dose difference. That sort of cuts down 

on the work for the NIOSH group.

But I think the NIOSH group, I think in every case 

we just need, we need a written response from 

NIOSH. And they can cover the whole set in one 

memo or whatever, but of any professional 

judgment matters for which they differ about 

whether that was even a professional judgment 

matter. And even if it wasn't professional judgment 

any other questions they have or issues they have 

about the interpretation.
26

We get that in a written form and that way we have 

the documentation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Good.

Mr. Siebert: Ted, when NIOSH agrees there's a 

professional judgment I don't think we need an

explanation of why NIOSH agreed, just where they 

disagreed.

Mr. Katz: Exactly. Exactly. When they agree they 

simply say I agree. 

Chair Kotelchuck: One sentence written memo, we 

agree.

Mr. Siebert: Two words, we agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: One memo to cover the whole set would 

be fine. And in terms of process, so we can just get 

that memo from them after Rose has done all this 

and pulled it all together, the comparison reports 

and so on. That's just one more step before we 

actually meet that they can do that, get that piece 

done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. So, Subcommittee 

members do we have any more questions about the 

dose reconstruction? 

Hearing none do we want to approve both of these 

dose reconstructions?

Member Lockey: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Do others agree?

Member Beach: Yes, I agree.

Member Valerio: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Then we have so decided. 

And ready to go on to the next one.

Dr. Buchanan: Just a second. This is Ron again. And 
27

I just wanted to come back and say something.

I did look further into this question of Pu-239. The 

bioassay -- I'd like to make a correction. The 

bioassay did say 239 or 238 and I was reading 

Doug's write-up here and he says SC&A chose to 

evaluate Pu-239 data points because there was 

more data and more individual data points with 239.

So, that was the reason that SC&A used 239 

because the data was divided in 238, a few data 

points, and 239 there was more data points. So 

Doug felt he could get a better estimate of the 

intake using 239. So that's -- I'd like to add that 

explanation.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Thank you. Good, that's 

helpful. Alright. 

So, I think we're ready to go on to the next one. It 

is 11:25 East Coast time. I don't know, I guess let's 

-- should we start? I would like to start the next 

one. What do others think? That may mean that 

we'll go on until 12:30 or so here at this time which 

would be 9:30.

Member Clawson: Let's keep going. We just won't 

stop.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Mr. Siebert: Let's do these.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Excellent. So, the next 

one is -- let's see.

Ms. Gogliotti: If it's okay, I'm sorry to throw a 

wrench into this. LANL is the next one but for 

whatever reason my computer is not opening the 

LANL file. So can we skip ahead to the Ames one 

until I can figure out why this LANL one won't open.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh yes, surely, surely.

Ms. Gogliotti: Kathy, are you on the line?
28

Ms. Behling: Yes, I am. I'm ready.

Ms. Gogliotti: Sorry.

Ms. Behling: That's all right. No problem. I'm 

anxious to talk. Okay, let's tackle Ames. I think we 

have it on the screen.

This blind comparison with the Ames Laboratory 

which they produced uranium and thorium metal 

and operated research reactors and several 

radiation-generating machines.

And so if we move to page 6 we will see that -- we'll

see that Table 1-1 shows this individual, this energy 

employee was diagnosed with four cancers. And 

you'll see the diagnosis dates there.

And if we move on to Table 1.2 we'll see a 

comparison of the doses for external and internal 

between NIOSH and SC&A.

And as you can see the recorded external dose for 

neutrons is very similar and also the missed photon 

doses are similar. 

And it's when we come to the missed neutron doses 

that we have a significant difference. Also 

environmental dose is very similar.

And so we'll spend quite a bit of time on that 

subject. And as a result this NIOSH calculated PoC 

that was less than 50 percent and SC&A calculated 

a PoC of greater than 50 percent. So we have a 

difference in this case.

So let's move on to Section 2. And Section 2 

provides information on the individual's job function 

and also shows that both SC&A and NIOSH primarily 

used -- the key technical documents were the Ames 

Technical Basis Document, OTIB-5 for the internal 

dosimetry and also the implementation guide, the 

external implementation guide.

Table 2-1. Again, when there's a dash it shows that 

there was no difference in the data and the 
29

assumptions as used by the two DR methods.

And if we scroll down you can see missed dose 

there was a difference in the number of zeroes that 

were calculated between NIOSH and SC&A.

And for the missed dose, the missed neutron dose 

also a difference in the number of zeroes. 

And here's where the major difference in dose came 

in is SC&A assigned a correction factor of 2 to the 

missed neutron dose.

Lastly, with the internal dose there was a slight 

difference because the intakes were calculated by 

NIOSH on the 365-day calendar year and SC&A is 

250-day working year.

So I'll go into the details. Going on to Section 3. 

And the first is the recorded photon doses. The 

individual was monitored and all of the recorded 

photon doses showed LODs of less than 2. So they 

were treated as missed dose.

There were also recorded neutron doses. Both DR 

methods identified that there were 10 positive 

neutron exchanges. They assigned the dose based 

on assuming 0.1 to 2 MeV neutrons energy range. 

They also applied the ICRP-60 correction factor. And 

they used OTIB-5 for finding an appropriate 

surrogate organ for the four cancers. 

For one of the cancers NIOSH used a triangular 

distribution of their DCF and that resulted in -- the 

Monte Carlo analysis resulted in the data being 

entered into IREP in a little bit different manner 

than SC&A. SC&A used the mode of all of the DCF 

values.

Based on those assumptions you can see the last 

paragraph there just before Section 3.3 nearly 

identical doses, identical or nearly identical doses 

were calculated by the two DR methods.

If we move on to missed photon doses. Again 
30

missed photon dose is based on one-half of the LOD 

from the TBD. And both parties, both DR methods 

used the TBD and OTIB-17 for calculating the 

missed photon doses.

Again, NIOSH used triangular distribution for one of 

the cancers and SC&A used mode.

Now, in some of the cases the DOE records, when 

there was a positive neutron dose identified the 

records would often show a zero for the photons or 

the betas. And so both SC&A and NIOSH assumed 

that a blank could equal to a zero.

SC&A also for one year there were some gaps 

between the dosimetry and so they filled in those 

gaps with zero which NIOSH didn't do. But this 

resulted in NIOSH calculating 86 zeroes and SC&A -

- I think this is wrong here. I think SC&A actually 

calculated 97, not 87 as shown in here, as shown in 

this section.

This resulted in doses that were obviously slightly 

higher because of the additional zero doses that 

SC&A assumed.

Now, we'll go on to the missed neutron dose. Again, 

both parties assigned neutron dose based on onehalf the LOD of the neutrons that was stated in the 

TBD and they applied the ICRP-60 correction factor 

of 1.91.

NIOSH calculated 76 neutron exchanges and SC&A 

calculated 84 zeroes for neutrons.

The difference in the doses is that according to the 

TBD there is supposed to be a neutron correction 

factor of 2 applied to various areas at the Ames 

facility to correct for NTA film that was used.

And NIOSH or SC&A applied that correction factor 

and that ended up with the doses being more than 

twice -- more than double of what the NIOSH doses 

were.
31

So the comparison between NIOSH and SC&A is the 

fact that we did apply this correction factor.

Now, thereafter when we actually got to look at the 

files there is something, I always call it a DR note. I 

guess it's titled the DR guidance document, it's a file 

that's not a published document that was put into 

this individual's administrative file.

And according to that it indicates that the correction 

factor does not get applied to missed neutron dose.

Now, this is not a published document and this 

information, this document was not available to 

SC&A and we based the decision to apply this 

correction factor on information that we read in the 

Technical Basis Document.

We move on to Section 3.5, the onsite ambient dose 

was not calculated by either NIOSH or SC&A based 

on TBD guidance. No, actually PROC-60 guidance. 

And same with the occupational medical dose. It 

was not calculated because of guidance in OTIB-79.

And let's move on then to Section 4 on page 13. 

There were no bioassay records for this individual. 

So environmental intakes were based on data in the 

TBD. And they were calculated by both NIOSH and 

SC&A.

And as I previously mentioned SC&A used a 250-

day work year for calculating the intakes and NIOSH 

used a 365-day calendar year. And the results of 

those assumptions are shown in Table 4-1. And 

obviously they were very modest doses.

Lastly, there was no evidence in the CATI report of 

any instance or yet unaccounted for exposure, so 

there was no additional dose added based on CATI 

information.

Okay, if we go on to our Section 5 now, our 

professional judgment decision points. Obviously as 

we discussed the missed neutron dose correction 
32

factor being applied by SC&A based on our 

interpretation of the Technical Basis Document, and 

this was not added by NIOSH.

And then lastly, the assessment of number of 

zeroes to go into the both neutron and photon 

missed doses. SC&A did fill in some gaps in a oneyear time frame with zeroes in those gaps. NIOSH 

did not do that. And I guess obviously the 

professional judgment comes in. It highlights how 

assignment of missed dose can be looked at 

differently. 

I guess in certain situations these gaps could have 

been filled in with coworker models because they 

are available for Ames.

Lastly, we'll go into the summary conclusions in 

Section 6. And that again shows the comparison of 

external and internal doses between SC&A and 

NIOSH for the four cancers.

And again, the combination of PoCs for those four 

cancers, SC&A was greater than 50 percent and 

NIOSH less than 50 percent. And as we talked the 

differences are highlighted below there. I don't 

know that we need to go through those again. If 

you'd like I can.

And there we have it. So, do we have any 

questions?

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Comments? Questions 

first?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. Would you like me to 

address the neutron thing?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: I figure that's probably the biggest 

question.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, it is not only the biggest 

question. It's the biggest difference in PoCs of any 

that we've come across so far, so.
33

Mr. Siebert: Correct.

Chair Kotelchuck: So this is of major importance.

Mr. Siebert: Okay. And I can address that. And 

Kathy mentioned this, just based on the fact that 

there is direction to assess it the way we did. We'll 

get into that in a second.

But this question of applying the correction factor to 

missed neutrons at Ames during that timeframe was 

actually -- we addressed that five years ago when 

we did a change out of the 13th Set. And at that 

time, we spent a lot of time going back and forth to 

demonstrate that the accurate way to assess it is to 

not apply that correction factor.

Once the Subcommittee agreed, what we did is we 

put it in the dose reconstruction guidance 

document, as was mentioned. And that document 

goes along with every claim that is assessed during 

that time. So, the methodology itself is not a 

question of professional judgment because we have 

direction on how to do that.

The question seems to be more of an issue of 

whether SC&A had access to that document or not. 

I can't really address that personally. Based on the 

fact that the way we handle it on our side is that DR 

guidance document not only goes with every claim 

that is assessed with it, but it also is in our tools 

folder, which is replicated over to, I believe, the 

DCAS side where all of our tools are replicated as 

well, so that SC&A has access to our tools.

I don't have access to that, so I don't know. But my 

understanding is that everything in that folder is 

replicated, so the DR guidance document should be 

over there as well. Now, like I said, I can't speak to 

that, and Grady, I apologize if I kind of put you on 

the spot.

Mr. Calhoun: Well, that's okay because I don't know 

either, because I have no reason to look at that.
34

Ms. Behling: And this is Kathy. Obviously, when 

we're doing these blinds, we do not look at -- we 

don't have access to any of this, NOCTS folders. We 

have access, but we don't look at any of those 

folders. We strictly -- this is a blind and we go 

forward with the technical documentation that we 

have. And I'm sure this is --

Mr. Siebert: Can I clarify on that?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Mr. Siebert: Once again, this is not something that 

would be in the -- it is in the files along with the 

case, but I'm not saying that's where it would just 

be located. It's also located with the default tools 

that we use. Tools that are, you know, the blank 

tools that are used before they're used by any 

claim.

So, wherever those are placed, that's where I'm 

thinking that should also be accessible to you. 

That's what I'm saying.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Yes, I agree. And I guess my 

question is -- and I guess based on what you're 

saying, Scott, and my recollection is not as good as 

yours.

But in thinking about this logically, when I look at 

the TBD and look at the data that's provided in the 

TBD, and the fact that we are basing missed dose 

on our dosimeters. And so it's the dosimeter -- if 

we're going to do a correction factor for recorded, 

wouldn't that also apply to this? I guess, we had 

that discussion?

Mr. Siebert: Yeah, I understand your concern. And, 

yeah, we did have this discussion. It's actually 

documented in the transcript of April 2nd, 2014, of 

this Subcommittee.

Ms. Behling: Okay. Because I would be -- I'd have 

to go back and refamiliarize myself with that, 

because the other thing that I always go back to 
35

with this issue, we do have this, what I always call a 

hierarchy of data. And, to me, the TBD should be 

the document that we go to when we do our blinds, 

along with the OTIBs, and not necessarily some 

guidance document that's not necessarily published. 

Am I correct?

Mr. Calhoun: Well, I will state that, yes, that I 

understand that. However, the whole point of the 

guidance document is, until a TBD is updated to 

reflect that information, this ensures that we are 

doing it consistently on our side for updated 

methods. We wouldn't want to wait until the TBD is 

updated to start applying correct methods.

Ms. Behling: Well, if this was done back in 2014, I 

guess it didn't get reflected into the TBD yet. 

Because, obviously, the most current TBD is 2012. 

So I --

Mr. Katz: Can I ask, Kathy, does the SC&A use any 

of the tools? Or do you do everything by hand, in a 

sense? Not by hand, of course, but do you use the 

tools that DCAS uses to do the DRs?

Ms. Behling: We do go in and use the CADW tools 

and IREP tools and other tools that have been 

developed for the OTIBs, yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So, anyway, this is one of those 

tools. But I think it's fair to appreciate that SC&A, 

which doesn't do these DR cases voluminously like 

NIOSH, I think it's fair to recognize that their 

awareness that there is a tool for this, maybe that's 

the problem here. They wouldn't necessarily know 

that there was a tool they should be going to for 

this. Right?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. Sounds like it.

Ms. Gogliotti: To my knowledge, we don't have 

access to these DR guidance documents. So if we do 

have access and we don't know where to find them, 

perhaps we could figure that out offline. But this 

comes up again and again for dose reconstructions, 
36

where we think there's a problem and really they 

fall in the guidance document we didn't have access 

to. And it's not always included in the claims file.

Mr. Katz: Right. But, Rose, this isn't a guidance. 

This is a tool. This is one of the things you drop 

your data in and it produces a calculation rate.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Ms. Behling: Right. This is not a tool.

Ms. Gogliotti: It's found with the tools. Right, Scott?

Mr. Siebert: That is correct. This is implemented in 

the tool. Correct.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Got it.

Ms. Behling: And I don't believe -- although maybe 

today I'm incorrect here, Scott can correct me --

are there these, quote, DR guidance documents for 

every facility? Because that wasn't always the case, 

and it wasn't always the case that they got attached 

to the files.

That was something that I remember Mark Griffon 

was very adamant about, and ultimately they were 

incorporated in on the later cases. But we didn't 

initially realize that these even existed as an interim 

reconstruction method.

Mr. Katz: Right. But we have a long track record of 

this now. And Mark Griffon's long gone. Right?

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Mr. Katz: And we have been doing this for a long 

time. But you don't see the cases until after you've 

done the blind review. So you wouldn't see what's in 

the file, so that's understandable.

I think at the point that SC&A does, you know, after 

the DR case has been reviewed and you're doing 

your comparison, at that point, is that the point 

where you are looking at the files to see what -- to 
37

understand what NIOSH did? Or do you actually 

look at the file for what NIOSH did after the 

comparison has been published?

Ms. Behling: No. In order to complete the 

comparison, we first publish our PoC and then, 

when we've been given permission to go ahead and 

do the comparison, then we look at the NIOSH files.

Mr. Katz: Got it. Got it. So then, at that point, it 

seems like, just thinking about the future, there's 

nothing to do here on this case, but thinking of the 

future, when you look at those files, then it seems 

like that's the cue. You see the DR file. You see that 

there's that guidance document, and you know that 

you can then address this then, and you don't have 

to put out the comparison report with, you know, a 

mistake about this issue.

Ms. Behling: However, we've already published our 

PoC.

Mr. Katz: Yeah, that's not a problem. I mean, it's 

just you supplement the comparison report. I mean, 

at least you can address it. For that matter, you can 

go back and say, we've got to recalculate the PoC 

because we didn't do the PoC right. Whatever. 

Because we didn't include the right -- again, you 

can correct it for defects. What we don't want is the 

review to be defective. If the review case is 

defective, then it's not helpful as a comparison.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. Correct.

Mr. Katz: Yeah, that's all. I'm just talking about 

going forward.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Beach: This is Josie. But it's fair to say that 

this one should be possibly re-ran by SC&A?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: I mean, that seems to me. And 

that's exactly what we're looking for. We want to 
38

make sure that on each of these two -- the 

Subcommittee is trying to see that each of these 

two cases are valid and now we discover, and it's 

understandable, it's not a mistake on SC&A's part 

that there was information that they did not have 

access to. And that they need to go back and redo it 

with having that access.

And it's that later comparison which has to be run 

through the Subcommittee that will get it published, 

if you will. And we'll see whether people agree or 

not in terms of compensation decision. Yes, I think 

it needs to rerun.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: And we can certainly do that. Just for 

my own clarification here, so you're directing us to, 

after we've completed our blind, sent our memo, 

and locked in a number, when we start the 

comparison, if we realize there's a problem like this 

one -- you're going to see another one like this on 

LANL, but different -- you would like us to go back 

and revise the blind, adding some kind of 

discussion? Or you want the new run to be in the 

comparison report, "had SC&A done this correctly, 

these are the new values"?

Chair Kotelchuck: I think there has to be a revised 

comparison report. I mean, it's --

Ms. Gogliotti: In the comparison or in the blind 

itself? Because we view them as separately even 

though they're published together.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. My feeling is that I'm 

thinking of the report to the Secretary. And it is that 

corrected one that I want to go in there. I don't 

think there's any point in leaving a number in which 

we know is not appropriate. And, again, not any 

fault of SC&A's.

I mean, it's just an unfortunate situation that --

well, it's not unfortunate. I mean, as Ted said, 

DCAS is doing dose reconstructions, SC&A has a 
39

more limited role and there are things that they 

may not know and they only find out later.

Member Clawson: Dave, this is Brad. Can I ask Rose 

a question, please? One of my things was, I was 

listening to what you were saying, Rose, and you're 

saying that going back and changing your original 

blind -- myself, I don't see that as -- I want to show 

that this is what we did. This is how blind we were 

in this. We didn't see any of these. This is how we 

did it, you know. But in the final report, couldn't we 

put that, you know, after evaluation we come to 

find out this tool is used to be able to do this, or 

whatever.

Because I think it's saying, actually, I look at this as 

this is a very good thing because it shows how 

precise these blinds have been being done. I just 

think in the final report --

Mr. Katz: So, Brad, consistent with what you're 

saying, and I think what Rose was asking about, I 

think as long as -- you don't have to go back and 

redo the original blind that you turned in, case 

report that you documented way before. But when 

you put in that comparison report, do the right 

calculations, and then if you could just have a 

footnote. And the footnote's just in case someone 

goes back to the original and wonders why they're 

different, that footnote would take care of that.

Member Clawson: Yes.

Mr. Katz: I think that's nicely transparent and yet 

doesn't end up with wrong results, because when 

the Subcommittee prepares reports to the Secretary 

and so on, they're going to look at the comparison 

reports anyway. They're not going to go back and 

look at the individual cases. I mean, the original 

blind review. So, yeah.

Chair Kotelchuck: So that will be done?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. So, going forward, we will make 

that change.
40

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: We obviously can't change what's 

been done for this set, but we will revise this 

comparison report to reflect that.

Mr. Katz: That sounds good.

Ms. Behling: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And then, with that, I think that is 

our resolve for this case. Right? And it's this Ames 

case. And then we will see the revised comparison 

report and, if you will, approve it or accept it. Right? 

Later.

Mr. Katz: Right.

Chair Kotelchuck: That is, the revised report will 

have to come back to us at a later meeting, and we 

will get through it. It should be straightforward, I 

hope, at that time.

Mr. Katz: Yeah, it can come back at the next 

meeting, Dave. My question before you leave this 

case is, I don't know whether NIOSH had a chance 

or needs to address anything else in the 

professional judgment category. I know this was the 

biggest matter, but I don't know whether it was the 

only matter of concern or not.

Member Beach: Yeah, and, Ted, thanks for -- this is 

Josie. I had a question on the 365 days versus the 

250. I don't know if we've addressed why SC&A 

chose the 250 work and NIOSH the 365. Small 

matter, but just curious.

Mr. Katz: Scott Siebert, I think the differences -- I 

mean, so, SC&A presented those other differences. 

Do you want to address any of them?

Mr. Siebert: Sure. The 250 versus the 365, all of 

our ambient doses and environmental doses are 

based upon a 365-day year. We don't break it up 

into the 250. So, that is a standard calculation 

that's done on our side. And when one goes back 
41

into the TBD and determines how the numbers were 

assessed based on breathing rate over the full year 

and so on, 365 is the way to assess it. So, that's 

that difference.

The other one is dealing with that short period of 

unmonitored treatment. We looked at that and the 

fact that the individual did not have badging during 

a very short amount of time, whereas they did 

during the rest of the time.

This is one I do believe is a reasonable professional 

judgment difference. That the dose reconstructor 

made the determination that they were not being 

monitored for a reason, because they were 

monitored at other times, and assigned ambient, 

whereas SC&A went in and filled in that area of that 

brief timeframe -- and it's about a month, month 

and a half, if I remember correctly -- with bi-weekly 

zeroes instead. 

Mr. Katz: Thank you, Scott.

Ms. Behling: Yeah, it's about a three and a half 

month. I'm sorry, this is about a three and a half, 

four month period. And it's a claimant-favorable 

approach.

Chair Kotelchuck: Just coming back to your report, 

on Page 11, you said you thought there was an 

error in the missed photon dose. And you were 

right. I looked at it. I'm sure some others have 

looked at it also. But on the SC&A count for total 

number it's not 87. I believe it's 94. Double check, 

but I think that needs a correction in there for the 

dose conversion --

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Ms. Gogliotti: We'll take care of that when we redo 

the run also.

Ms. Behling: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah. Okay. Alright. Folks, are 
42

there any other questions from the Subcommittee 

before we wrap it up?

Dr. Buchanan: This is Ron Buchanan. I'm not on the 

Subcommittee, but I would like a clarification

Mr. Calhoun: Yes.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. The site guidance documents 

have been a problem since day one, knowing what 

the current one is and where they're at. Is there 

any way NIOSH could put those where we can find 

them on the AB drive so that we know what sites 

have them and that they're up to date.

Because I have some I've collected here and there, 

and they're like '05 and '07. I know they're not used 

still, probably. Where can we get an up-to-date, 

when we're doing a blind dose, or any dose, and go 

and get the current site guidance documents? Could 

NIOSH let us know that, maybe offline sometime?

Mr. Calhoun: Yeah. This is Grady. I'll check into 

that.

Dr. Buchanan: Okay. That would be much helpful 

and appreciated. Thank you.

Mr. Katz: And Grady, if you'd just copy me at least 

when you've got that result, however it is. And I can 

just make sure everyone knows. Thanks.

Mr. Calhoun: Sure thing.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. Excellent. Okay. So, 

we've disposed of this in terms of how it will be 

handled, the Ames case. And it is almost noon here 

on the East Coast, so it seems appropriate to take 

our hour break for lunch and reconvene at 1:00 

p.m. East Coast time. Is that okay, folks?

Member Beach: Sounds good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And hopefully we'll be able 

to go on to the LANL case when we come back. 

Rose, I hope things are --
43

Ms. Gogliotti: I've got it pulled up here. I don't know 

why it wouldn't open from the hard drive, so I just 

emailed it to myself.

Chair Kotelchuck: And by the way, I spoke to you 

before the meeting began that I couldn't get back 

on to my proper place in my CDC computer, and I 

got back into it long ago. 

So, folks, see you all at 1:00 p.m. East Coast time.

Mr. Katz: Thanks.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:58 a.m. and resumed at 1:01 p.m.)

Mr. Katz: So this is the Dose Reconstruction Review 

Subcommittee. And, Dave, it's your meeting again.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, I think we were going 

to start with the LANL blind case.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Can you see my screen?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Clawson: We can see it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Great. Nicole?

Ms. Briggs: Yes. Okay. So, this is the report of G34, 

which is for the Los Alamos Site. Now, for this case, 

there are pretty different PoC values between 

NIOSH and SC&A. NIOSH's was over 50, and SC&A 

was under 50. And we'll get into those reasons 

during my discussion.

So, I'll go through some of the tables. Page 6 has 

Table 1-1, which is a list of all the cancers that are 

involved for this particular case. And Table 1-2, 

which is on Page 7, presents a summary of the 

occupational doses calculated by both NIOSH and 

SC&A.

And for their dose reconstructions, NIOSH stated 

that they calculated doses using best-estimate 
44

methods and claimant-favorable assumptions. And 

SC&A said that they used reasonable and claimantfavorable methods. Let's see, and then on Page 9, 

Table 1-3, there's a comparison of the final PoC 

values.

So, if we go to the beginning of Section 2, which is 

on Page 10, that gives a little bit more detail about 

the employee's work history. And Table 2-2 

presents a comparison of all of the documents, the 

assumptions, and the dose parameters used by both 

parties. And as, I think, Ron mentioned before, the 

dash in the second column simply means that both 

SC&A and NIOSH used the same parameters and 

procedures for that particular dose assignment.

So if we go to Section 3, which starts on Page 12, 

that presents the details of the external dose 

calculations. Now, this employee was actually not 

monitored for external exposures, so both parties 

used the data from the LANL TBD to assign only 

occupational medical dose and onsite ambient dose.

So, for the occupational medical dose, both parties 

assigned the dose using the documented X-ray 

exams for this employee in the DOE records. And, 

let's see, Table 3-1 on Page 12 lists those 

occupational medical doses assigned by both parties 

and for each cancer.

Now, although both parties used most of the same 

methods in terms of the original data, this is where 

we have the largest difference in dose and is what is 

attributed to the large difference in the PoC values.

So, both parties assigned dose from a preemployment X-ray exam that was listed in the 

records. Now, NIOSH assigned it as a 

photofluoroscopic exam, a PFG exam, and SC&A 

assigned it as a conventional X-ray exam. And, as 

we know, the doses for PFG exams are much larger 

than doses from regular X-ray exams. And that's 

particularly the case if it involves certain target 

organs.
45

So, now, the medical records for this preemployment exam, this one in particular, did not 

specify the type of the scan. So, the LANL TBD does 

say that if a medical record has a certain film 

number notation involved with it, then it should be 

considered a PFG. Now, this was honestly an 

oversight on the part of SC&A, which did not take 

this notation into account, and therefore assigned 

the doses as conventional X-rays.

Now, the PFG doses in some cases can be, you 

know, three or as much as ten times higher than 

the conventional X-rays. And this difference was 

compounded by the fact that we're dealing with 

several cancers for this particular case. And this is 

really the main reason for that big difference in PoC. 

So, I can pause there, if anybody has any 

questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: No. Do go ahead.

Ms. Briggs: Okay. Let's see. Next we'll talk about 

the ambient dose. So, both parties assigned the 

external onsite ambient dose using the doses 

presented in the TBD, and that information is on 

Page 14. And all of those doses are listed in the 

report on Table 3-2.

Now, there were just small differences in these 

assigned ambient doses, which are attributed to 

small differences in the type of the dose conversion 

factors used, a small difference in the number of 

working hours per year that were assumed, and 

some of the distributions used in the IREP 

calculation.

Now, for the working hours per year, NIOSH used 

PROC-60, which was appropriate at the time of the 

original DR. I guess these DRs, they hit an unusual 

time in terms of the publication of some of the 

documents. So it was appropriate for the time of the 

original DR, but that has since been canceled. So 

SC&A used the work hours information from the site 

TBD.
46

Now, for the dose conversion factors, NIOSH and 

SC&A chose different values. NIOSH used the 

isotropic, and SC&A used the AP, which also 

contributed to just a small difference in the ambient 

dose.

Now, we also should note here that for one of the 

cancers we found an error in the IREP input. So, 

SC&A inadvertently omitted the dose conversion 

factor. I guess it was a copy and paste error in the 

IREP program, and that resulted in just about an 

additional, I'd say 200 millirem for one particular 

cancer site and for the ambient dose.

The last part is -- well, for the doses -- the internal 

doses. So this EE was not monitored for internal 

exposures. Both NIOSH and SC&A assigned dose 

from environmental intakes using the information 

from the LANL TBD. And both parties used identical 

methods and arrived at the exact same doses, and 

those doses are listed on Page 15 in Table 4-1.

Just going to get myself there, too. Okay, that 

brings us to the section regarding decision points. 

So, for this case, SC&A identified the area of dose 

conversion factor selection. And there can be some 

uncertainty regarding the exposure geometry for a 

particular worker, for a particular target organ, and 

these geometries can vary based on the EE's duties 

and their work environment.

The example for this case is that NIOSH used the 

isotropic DCF for the ambient dose, and SC&A used 

the AP geometry. Now, I know the new external 

dose reconstruction document, OTIB-88, they were 

actually pretty clear about the use of the isotropic 

dose conversion factors for ambient dose, but I'm 

not sure if this document was available around the 

time we were tasked with these blinds. The 

document is dated in September of 2018, and I 

know we were probably working on this one at the 

time, when SC&A performed this dose 

reconstruction.

So, let's see, I think, at the time, SC&A chose the 
47

AP dose conversion factor for ambient because 

those dose conversion factors are higher and then 

would be claimant-favorable. So that explains the 

difference in that assignment.

But for the assignment of dose conversion factor 

selection, specifically for ambient dose, I think the 

new OTIB, OTIB-88, actually takes away any of that 

confusion. I don't know, we can discuss that if 

anyone has any opinions about that. 

Let's see. And just to summarize, the last page, 

Page 18, Table 6-1 has the comparison and 

breakdown of all of the assigned doses and the PoC 

values.

So the largest difference came from the assignment 

of the PFG versus the conventional X-ray exam for 

occupational medical dose for that one particular 

year. And this accounts for the majority of the 

difference in certainly the total assigned dose, and 

the primary reason for the difference in PoC values.

And the other differences I had mentioned were the 

work hours, the conversion factors for ambient 

dose, but these small differences really didn't 

contribute a significant amount to the total assigned 

dose. And that's pretty much it for this one.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, you're saying that the 

difference was primarily just due to that one year 

that you used the PFG exam versus the X-ray?

Ms. Briggs: Yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: -- doesn't make sense to me. 

Ms. Briggs: Right, the PFG exam in some cases can 

be as much as ten times higher. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, it is?

Ms. Briggs: Yes, in certain cases. I think it varies 

but it's not unusual to see an order of magnitude 

higher or ten times higher. And also, I can't specify 

but there are several cancers for this case and it 
48

really did add up once we got them all together. 

Chair Kotelchuck: It did appear to me that the 

cancers in the extremities, if I may use that term, 

were where the large effect occurred. The one case 

of PFG had happened once years before. 

It doesn't accumulate and the differences are 

enormous in the PoC. Not enormous, pardon me, 

just very large. 

Mr. Katz: Dave, the whole PFG matter, that's sort of 

understood by everyone pretty early in the 

program, long before you were on the Board. 

But I think just to summarize, those doses are very 

large with PFG and I believe, early on in particular, 

there were a lot of cases that were compensated 

basically because of their multiple PFG exams, not 

really because of other occupational exposures. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, but I thought the PFG, if I 

recall, and I believe I just heard that was just for, 

what, one year?

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

Ms. Briggs: Right, so one year for one particular 

exam but it's the dose from that exam to each of 

the target sites, cancer target sites, of which there 

were many. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, there certainly were. And 

between NIOSH and SC&A, for each of you do you 

consider whether -- have you discussed the 

difference or the different assignment for that one 

year? 

Is there evidence that one of those is correct and 

one is not?

Ms. Gogliotti: In this situation SC&A agrees it should 

have been a PFG scan. When we were looking at the 

records, it simply doesn't say the scan type and it's 

an interpretation of the scan. 
49

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. To my mind, it would be 

worth looking at the --

Ms. Gogliotti: We will absolutely recalculate these 

numbers for you with the PA scan rather than the 

PFG.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Do other people have 

questions or concerns or does that satisfy the 

concerns of others?

Member Beach: Dave, this is Josie. That was going 

to be my question, or re-running or not so thank 

you. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, and that's good and that will 

come back to the Board. Any other questions, 

though? 

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. If you don't mind, I do 

want to point out Nicole was correct, especially 

about the one that comes out under professional 

judgment on here as being the selection of the DCS. 

The OTIB-88 update is very clear on that so she's 

correct on that. Prior to that, the information is in 

both OCAS IG-1 and Procedure 60. 

Procedure 60 actually has not yet been cancelled 

because there's information in there that is being 

transferred to other TBDs. 

OTIB-88 is replacing it but there's still some specific 

information in 60 that we need to use and 

reference. So, it hasn't been cancelled yet, it's still 

active. 

But there is information in there as well about using 

the isotropic DCS so I think there has been 

guidance on that. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Mr. Siebert: It's much clearer now in OTIB-88 

however. 
50

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, right, and SC&A now has 

that or you will make sure they have it?

Ms. Gogliotti: We now have access to it. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. 

Ms. Gogliotti: It was just issued right in the middle 

of our DRs.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, and that has happened 

before. Things change and you are informed of the 

change or it's in the process of change. 

Okay, so unless there's objection we'll go on, with 

this returning to us at a later date. Does that sound 

okay? 

Member Clawson: Fine with that. 

Member Beach: Yes, sounds good. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine, let's go through B.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one here is going to be 

B32. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, sorry. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Paducah and Hanford. And, Ron, are 

you on the line?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes, I am on the line and again, if 

you'll turn to Page 6? I'll go by my marked up copy 

here and I'll tell you when to turn the pages. 

This is a Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant worker in 

early years, and that's important we'll see a little 

later. And with a very, very short stay at the 

Hanford site. 

And so the initial DR was formed by NIOSH in April 

2017. We were assigned the case on September 

26th and we submitted our report in October of 

2018.

And both methods arrived at PoC less than 50 
51

percent, therefore, it wouldn't be compensated, as 

shown there on Page 6. Now, if we go down to Page 

7, Table 1-1, it gives us an idea of what doses were 

assigned. 

The worker wasn't monitored so we had to do use 

coworker dose assignments for both external and 

internal, and medical and environmental is listed 

there. 

We see that the internal involved fission products, 

tritium and environmental. And the main difference 

in this dose reconstruction is whether you're 

assigned coworker or environmental for periods that 

it isn't available in the TBD. 

We go to Page 8 there and we see Table 1-2 which 

compares the final PoC. You see that they both 

range between 45 and 50 percent but most were 

under 50 percent. 

And we go to Page 9 there and we see the EE was 

not monitored for external dose or internal, and so 

we have Table 2-3 which compares some of the 

dose reconstruction methods. 

And we have a coworker dose for Hanford and 

coworker dose for Paducah, and the main difference 

is that NIOSH used the Hanford workbook as 

opposed to we did not, and the Paducah workbook. 

The coworker doses at Paducah was the main 

difference in that NIOSH assigned it for '52, used 

coworker dose. SC&A did not assign coworker dose 

because there was none listed in the TBD for 1952 

so they assigned environmental, and so that was 

the main difference. 

And of course, that carries on all the way down to 

shallow dose and neutron dose as we shoot further 

down the page there. 

And then it also carried on into ambient on Page 11 

because SC&A assigned some ambient dose instead 

of coworker dose, so there was a tradeoff between 
52

those two. 

We see that the medical doses were assigned the 

same, internal doses, again, SC&A used 

environmental and NIOSH assigned coworker and so 

there was a difference of opinion there. That leads 

us into the details of the external dose in Section 6 

and starts on Page 13. And so since the worker was 

monitored --

Ms. Gogliotti: Rose here, I just got kicked out. 

Dr. Buchanan: Oh, okay, we're on Page 13. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, can you see my screen still?

Dr. Buchanan: Yes, if you go to Page 13 we'll start 

on external dose. Okay, so now we're all on the 

same page literally and we'll get on to the external 

dose. 

We see this was monitored, both parties assigned 

coworker doses for Hanford and Paducah, and used 

a dose conversion factor of 1 for the skin dose and 

the relevant dose conversion factors for the nonskin dose. 

They assigned a dose of 30 to 250 keV photons. 

Both parties used the information for coworker dose 

out of the Paducah coworker dose listing and 

adjusted it for construction trade worker in OTIB-52 

and both parties used Table B-3 appropriately. 

And we see that, again, the main difference since 

Paducah started to actually handle radioactive 

material on September 1, 1952 and so 

unfortunately, the TBD did not list anything for 

1952. 

And so what happened there, NIOSH extrapolated 

from 1953 backwards and used that prorated for 

1952. SC&A did not use the back extrapolation, 

instead they used environmental dose for that 

partial year of 1952, which would be a third of the 

year. 
53

And so that made it slightly different. SC&A 

assigned a slightly lower dose for the coworker dose 

and then a greater dose for the environmental dose. 

For Hanford at the bottom of that page of 13, we 

see we both assigned coworker dose -- well, we 

both assigned it as 100 percent, 30 to 250 keV.

We used the 50th percentile coworker dose and 

assigned identical doses there to the skin and nonskin organs at the bottom of Page 13. 

And so if we go to Page 14 now, we see there is the 

total coworker doses assigned and, again, NIOSH 

assigned a greater dose because they assigned it to 

52 and SC&A assigned environmental dose. 

Now, for shallow dose in Section 3.2 we see both 

parties assign it as greater than 15 keV photons and 

used the information in Table B-2 of the Paducah 

TBD. 

And there was a slight difference in the final year of 

employment, how you calculate the final dose and 

also, of course, 52 since we didn't -- SC&A didn't 

assign it 52. It wouldn't have been a shallow dose. 

So, we see Table 3-2 shows the comparisons of the 

shallow dose and again, SC&A is slightly less just 

because of the reasons I mentioned. And we look at 

Section 3.3 on Page 14 and then on Page 15 we 

have unmonitored neutron dose. 

Of course, we wouldn't monitor for neutrons and so 

we used the recommendation in the TBD for 

neutron dose, coworker dose, and that's 

summarized on Page 15 of Section 3-3 for Hanford. 

And then we have Paducah in 3.1 and used the 

neutron ratio of 0.2 and dose conversion factor of 1, 

skin, and the appropriate one for the other organ. 

And we see that, of course, since SC&A assigned 

environmental dose for 1952, our dose is a little bit 

less than NIOSH. 
54

And that brings us to Hanford there in 3.3.2 and 

both parties assigned unmonitored dose there using 

the appropriate tables and the ratio and energy 

values. 

We used the same parameters, the ICRP correction 

factor of 1.91 and same energy range and 

everything, the same neutron to photon ratio of 0.8. 

However, in the end it appeared that NIOSH's 

assignment was about 35 percent higher than 

SC&A's. 

And so we tried to find out why since we used all 

the same parameters and the same adjustment 

factors and so we went through the TBD to try to 

find out where 35 percent comes in. And we could 

not find it anywhere except for where they state 

that neutron dose management form of TLDs 

implemented in 1972 are considered accurate 

except for a period from 1978 to 1983 and adjust 

the neutron dose to 1.35 times the recorded the 

neutron dose. 

And that was the only thing we could find that might 

have influenced that, however, that wouldn't apply 

to 1953. And so when NIOSH gives their discussion, 

maybe they can shed some light on that. 

We just couldn't find out where that extra factor of 

35 percent is coming in. And so just a while ago I 

searched the Hanford guide, DR guide, and I could 

not find anything that mentioned 35 percent or a 

factor of 1.35. 

So, we'll let NIOSH address that when we get to 

that. Okay, so we have comparison of neutron 

doses there on Page 16 and we see that mainly, the 

factor 1.35 and the exact days you use for 1954. 

And of course, the fact that we didn't assign 

coworker doses in '52. So, that brings us to the 

occupational medical dose in Section 3.4 on Page 

16. 
55

We find that there was no medical records for this 

EE in the DOE files so we assigned it coordinates 

TBD, initial hire two-year periodic and a termination 

exam and we assigned identical doses to both the 

skin and non-skin organs as shown there in 

Summary Table 3-4 on Page 16. 

There was no differences there. Now, external, it 

would be in Section 3.5 on Page 16. NIOSH did not 

assign ambient dose because EE was assigned 

coworker dose for all the time that it was in 

employment. 

SC&A, as we previously discussed, could not find 

information on 1952 coworker dose. We tried to use 

the environmental dose, that wasn't stated in the 

TBD either so we went to Procedure 60 and used 

their maximum Paducah environmental dose of 

0.260 rem for a 2600 hour work year and prorated 

that to the appropriate time period for 1952. 

And again, we came up using the ambient dose 

conversion factor, AP, whereas NIOSH used the ROT 

geometry. 

And so we just discussed that in the last DR and so 

that has since been formalized in OTIB-88, the 

rotation is correct. 

Now, we come to Hanford on Page 17, 

environmental 3.5.2, and both assigned ambient 

dose for the small amount of time that the worker 

was there, a very short time, using the -- Procedure 

60 says that for a certain date in the 1970s you 

assign ambient dose. 

And so we both did use the same values except that 

NIOSH tracked it out to 20 millirem background 

dose. 

So, this comes from Procedure 60, Page 21, which 

refers to the old tables in the 2005 or so Hanford. 

They used Table 4.3.1-1. The newer versions use 

Table 4-8. 
56

And so we use the Table 4.8 and it doesn't say 

anything in Hanford TBD about subtracting out the 

20 millirem. 

It does say in Procedure 60 on Page 21 that the 

tables contained in it does subtract out the 20 

millirem background dose. 

So that was the difference, slight difference, in the 

environmental assignment plus the AP versus the 

ISO dose conversion factor instead of rotational. 

That was incorrect, it's ISO. 

So, that is a slight difference in environmental for 

Hanford for a very short period of time. We didn't 

have too much difference in this case, it's so short, 

but it could in multiple years of ambient dose. 

So, looking at Table 3-5 it compares them here and 

you see that NIOSH assigned dose is less, of course, 

than SC&A's assigned dose because we assigned 

some years as ambient instead of coworker. 

So, that is the external dose and now we turn to 

Page 18, Section 4 for the internal. And again, there 

was no bioassays for either site for internal and so 

both parties used coworker intake according to the 

tables, 50th percentile uranium intakes in the TBD, 

finding out that Type S provided the highest dose 

and, of course, included the recycled uranium into 

that. 

And SC&A and NIOSH assigned identical doses to 

the skin locations and a very slight difference of a 

millirem to the non-skin location. 

And this is probably due to rounding and carrying 

forth the numbers because we used all the same 

parameters. That was for Paducah and now for 

Hanford, again a short period but still used 

coworker dose. 

NIOSH used the values that included tritium, 

plutonium, sodium, uranium, zinc from TBD Table 

5.43 for construction trade workers and used Type 
57

S plutonium and used OTIB-49 for the appropriate 

organs for the Super S plutonium. 

And additionally, NIOSH included exposure from 

fission and activation products according to OTIB-54 

and so these were assigned prorated for the period 

of employment, using cesium-137 as the main 

element there in conjunction with OTIB-54. 

And these all came down to a few millirems of dose 

assignment to the skin and non-skin organs. 

And now we see on Page 19 SC&A used 

environmental intake and the reason they did that 

says that the TBD is 6-5 for Hanford, Page 68 says 

gen monitored internal dose for workers but no 

bioassay for just baseline or terminal bioassays. 

No evidence of ever having more dosimeters, it 

should be based on that not only in fact. 

So, in this case that's what SC&A did and used the 

environmental intake for the short period that was 

necessary and assigned less than 1 millirem per 

year to each organ. 

And so this was probably NIOSH used to conserve 

the approach which was perhaps more claimantfavorable. SC&A went strictly by the TBD and 

assigned the environmental since the worker had no 

monitoring data, external or internal. 

So, we see we have a summary of the doses there 

for coworker dose for Hanford in there. They're very 

small but they're slightly different, NIOSH had a 

slightly different, higher dose of course using 

coworker dose. 

Section 4.3 radiological incidents, both parties 

reviewed the files and did not find anything to 

suggest any changes to the DR. This brings us to 

Section 5 on Page 20 and that's a summary of 

professional judgments. 

We see that in one case, as I've talked about 
58

previously, SC&A could not find coworker dose 52 

so they used environmental. NIOSH extrapolated 53 

back to 52 so that resulted in a slightly higher dose. 

And so in this case it didn't make much difference, it 

would be handy, though, if the TBDs when they 

were revised addressed what's supposed to be done 

September 1, 1952 to December 31, 1952 if you 

need coworker data or environmental data. 

Hanford coworker versus environmental intakes, 

again, I think there's a difference there. In this case 

because it wasn't very long, a longer period could 

have resulted in a bigger difference and that's if the 

person isn't monitored whatsoever. 

You then assign environmental dose and that's what 

SC&A interpreted the TBD to say. Simply, NIOSH 

erred on the high side and assigned coworker dose. 

So, in summary, on Page 21 we have a comparison 

of the doses and PoCs. We see again that the PoC is 

slightly higher for NIOSH and SC&A is a little lower. 

Both parties used the enterprise edition of IREP to 

calculate the POCs and so that's essentially the 

presentation and I'm open for questions. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, questions, folks? Don't 

overwhelm us. 

Mr. Siebert: Well this is Scott, if you'd like me to 

cover those two points, I'd be happy to do that. 

Chair Kotelchuck: We'd be happy to have you do 

that. 

Mr. Siebert: The first one is the discussion about the 

coworker versus ambient in 1952 and Ron's right, 

the TBD is silent on that. We've gone back and 

we've looked and historically we've used guidance 

on our own that we have extended that 1953 

coworker information back for the months of 

September, October, November, December. 

But looking back, that was not well documented so I 
59

have ensured that that information is now placed in 

the DR guidance document, which I hope you guys 

can get access to soon. 

So, that information will not be a professional 

judgment issue later on. During this decisionmaking process, I think it's a reasonable thing to 

say it was but we are documenting that to ensure 

there's consistency on that. 

So, we will have that done or we actually do have 

that done. 

And the Hanford coworker versus environmental 

intakes for those 19 days, and I agree that once 

again this is a professional judgment issue, the dose 

reconstructor looked at this individual.

And the fact that they were not monitored but they 

were a pipe-fitter/welder, they put that construction 

trade worker-type thought process into account and 

said that although there are no specific records, it 

seems reasonable that exposure may have occurred 

in those types of work such as is described in OTIB14. 

So, that's why they selected coworker instead of 

ambient.

Chair Kotelchuck: Got it, okay. So, you were saying 

that from NIOSH's point of view, you might have 

changed something slightly looking back. 

Did I get that correctly? 

Mr. Siebert: No, we would still do it probably pretty 

much the same way. Now we have the 1952 portion 

documented so it's more clear as to what you 

should do for those four months when the site first 

opened. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, so it's going forward, the 

process is improved?

Mr. Siebert: Correct. 
60

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I don't have any questions 

so any other Subcommittee Members have 

questions?

Member Lockey: No, this is good, thank you.

Member Beach: Yes, I don't have any either. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I don't have any 

questions. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, no questions.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, so I think that we've 

basically passed on it and approved. So, I think 

unless, again, if there are any comments from any 

other staff person perhaps? 

Alright, so that's been approved, good. So, let's go 

on to the fifth of six. We're moving right along on 

these. Let's see, the fifth one is, let me look. 

Ms. Gogliotti: It's Battelle. And Kathy, are you on 

the line?

Ms. Behling: Yes, I am, I'm ready to go. Okay, this 

is a blind comparison from the Battelle Memorial 

Institute and this is on King Avenue site in 

Columbus, Ohio. 

There's another Battelle facility on West Jefferson in 

Columbus, Ohio also, which is similar to this. 

But the King Avenue site processed in machineenriched uranium, depleted uranium, and thorium 

and they fabricated fuel elements and they did 

some radiochemical analysis. 

So, if we go to Page 7, we can see under Table 1.1 

the summary of cancers for this individual and there 

are six. And if we move on then to Table 2, we'll see 

a comparison of NIOSH's doses to SC&A's doses. 
61

And as you can see in this table, the internal and 

external pathway dose is calculated by -- both 

NIOSH and SC&A were identical or very similar in 

this case. 

And the combined PoCs were less than 50 percent 

by both methodologies. And these comparison 

tables go through Page 10 and so we'll move on to 

Page 11. 

And on Page 11 that identifies, the first paragraph 

identifies, the individual's job classification and this 

EE was periodically monitored for internal and 

external exposure. 

And as you can see, the list of technical documents 

that were used, both NIOSH and SC&A used the 

same documents, primarily the BMI King Avenue 

Technical Basis Document. 

And going down, scanning down to Table 2-1, this is 

a comparison of the data and assumptions and as 

we look down here you can see that most of SC&A's 

assumptions mirrored what NIOSH used. 

There were only differences in the missed shallow 

dose, the occupational medical dose, and the 

internal environmental dose, which we'll discuss in 

the detailed section. 

So, therefore, we can move on to Page 14 and here 

we'll start with the details of the external dose 

calculations. 

So, based on DOE records they were positive or 

greater than LOD over two doses reported for 

several years of employment. Both methodologies 

assumed 100 percent AP, used the recorded values 

and appropriate DCFs and calculated an identical 30 

to 250 keV photon dose that's identified in the 

second paragraph. 

Recorded shallow dose, there was only one positive 

beta dose and both methods also use the AP 

geometry. 
62

They assign that electron dose as greater than 15 

keV, used appropriate DCFs and calculated an 

identical dose. Modest dose shown in Section 3.2. 

If we go on to Section 3.3 the missed photon dose, 

again, very similar results here. Both NIOSH and 

SC&A identified 32 zeroes. They based the dose on 

one-half of the MDA values that was listed in the 

TBD for the various time of employment periods. 

They used appropriate DCFs and the doses are 

shown in Table 3.1 and they were entered into IREP 

as a log-normal distribution with the geometric 

standard deviation of 1.5. The doses were identical.

If we move on to missed shallow dose on Page 15, 

NIOSH did not assign a missed shallow dose in 

accordance with OTIB-17. They determined that all 

of the missed dose should be assigned under 30-

250 keV photons. 

In this particular case, SC&A interpreted the records 

a little bit differently. In looking through the 

records, they found where there were often two 

dosimetry records, one from Landauer and one from 

Battelle. 

And in some cases the same dosimeter was 

reported on both and after doing some research in 

the Site Research Database, they determined that 

when there was an M identified under the photons 

that was equivalent to less than MDA. 

And it also stated in one of the documents that a 

minimal beta dose reading are unreported unless 

there's a positive skin exposure.

So, therefore, SC&A interpreted an M under photons 

as assuming a 0 and a blank for the beta readings 

were assigned a 0. Based on that, those 

assumptions, SC&A assigned 120 millirem to each 

of the cancers. 

That was assigned as greater than 15 keV electrons 

and entered into IREP as a log-normal distribution 
63

with a GSD of 1.52.

Also, going on to Section 3.5, missed neutron dose, 

the EE was monitored for neutrons for several years 

and both NIOSH and SC&A calculated doses using 

the TBD LOD values, appropriate DCFs, ICRP 60, a 

correction factor of 1.91 and again, resulted in the 

assignment of the same dose. 

And we can move on now to on-site ambient. Both 

assessed on-site ambient in accordance with the 

TBD and calculated the same dose again as shown 

in Section 3.6. 

Occupational medical dose, both NIOSH and SC&A 

looked at the DOE records and based their dose on 

what was reported in the records. They used doses 

from OTIB-6. The doses shown in Section 3.7 are 

very similar. 

SC&A's dose was slightly higher due to their -- they 

considered that the individual also was given a 

termination chest PA. NIOSH did not assume that. 

Okay, that's external dose and if we want to move 

on to Page 17, we'll talk about internal. Okay, this 

was monitored for uranium by urinalysis. 

All results were less than MDA except for one, 

therefore, both NIOSH and SC&A assessed both 

acidic for the positive dose and a missed dose for 

uranium and recycled uranium. 

Both methods used the same assumptions, 100 

percent uranium 234. It was stated that they both 

used the same specific activity of 0.683. Urine 

excretion rate of 1.4 liters per day and they both 

assessed all three absorption types, Type S, M, and 

F.

They both found that Type F produced the highest 

dose and also considered the recycled uranium, 

radioisotopes of plutonium, neptunium, technetium, 

uranium -- or thorium-228 and 232.
64

When I look at the comparison of the results that 

are shown in Table 4-1, there was a slight difference 

and so that made me question if they used all the 

same assumptions, why there was a little bit of a 

difference. And in digging through the files, I did 

determine that NIOSH inadvertently entered a 

specific activity as 0.693 rather than 83.

So that accounted for the difference in NIOSH's 

dose being slightly higher. And if we move on to 

Page 18, the chronic uranium intake, for the missed 

dose a chronic uranium intake was calculated for a 

portion of the employment period. 

Again, the error of the specific activity was 

inadvertently introduced which made just a slight 

difference in the doses. 

Again, NIOSH and SC&A both compared Types S, M, 

and F of solubilities and in this particular case, 

NIOSH assumed Type M as shown in Table 4-2 and 

assumed two chronic intake periods where SC&A 

assumed a Type S and assumed one chronic intake 

period. And you can see the differences in intake 

rates on that table. 

They also, because plutonium is involved, they also 

looked at a potential for considering Type Super S 

plutonium based on OTIB-49; however, this was not 

necessary for this particular case.

So, in Section 4.1.3, we identified a total uranium 

intake and based on these assumptions, the doses 

were very similar. 

Now, if we move on to environmental intake, for an 

environmental internal intake, the TBD states that, 

and I put a quote in here from the TBD under 

Section 4.2, that for the King Avenue site, they 

were calculated in environmental intake that would 

have resulted in doses of less than 1 millirem. 

However, if it was determined that the EE traveled 

between the King site facility and the West Jefferson 

site, then they recommend to the dose 
65

reconstructor to calculate those as based on the 

intake values for the West Jefferson site. 

So, in this case, NIOSH, based on information that 

they found in the CATI report, felt that the EE had 

worked at both sites and so they calculated their 

environmental intake using the West Jefferson 

environmental doses. And this resulted in a dose of 

less than 1 millirem. 

SC&A did not assume, they did not come to the 

conclusion that the individual worked at the West 

Jefferson site and so they didn't calculate any 

environmental intake. 

And lastly, the CATI report was reviewed and both 

concluded that there was no unrecorded incidents. 

And if we move on to Page 20, the decision points 

requiring professional judgments, that's what we 

have just gone over.

Two notable areas where professional judgment 

came into play and that was reconciling the 

discrepancies in available dosimetry data. SC&A 

looked at the two sets of data and did some 

research to try to determine what some of the 

notations meant. And NIOSH didn't seem to 

acknowledge the difference in the monitoring 

records. 

And the impact was of SC&A assigning an additional 

120 millirem of electron dose. And then also is the 

interpretation of bioassay data. When it comes to 

bioassay data, I think there's always professional 

judgment in play. 

SC&A assumed a chronic intake for Type F and for 

one period of time and NIOSH assigned two chronic 

intake periods and assumed a Type M. Doses were 

similar I think because this wasn't a very complex 

array of bioassay data, so I think the OTIB-60 

guidance was adequate to allow for similar results, 

even though there were differences in the approach. 

And lastly, if we go on to summary conclusions, 
66

again, Table 6.1 presents the NIOSH and SC&A 

doses for the internal and external doses. Again, 

everything's very similar and POCs are both less 

than 50 percent. 

And again, NIOSH and SC&A ran the IREP 

enterprise edition. And again, I could go through the 

differences, the modest differences, in doses but I 

think they've been explained previously. 

But if you have any questions, I'll take them now. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Any questions, folks? Am I on?

Member Clawson: This is Brad, no.

Member Beach: You're on.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, I don't have any.

Member Lockey: Jim. I'm fine. 

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. 

One of the things I can address is the discussion of 

the discrepancies in the dosimetry data. There is 

discussion in the TBD about the beta results and so 

on. 

On Page 32 of the TBD it's discussing those types of 

results and part of that discussion mentions that for 

reported cases, they would sometimes report doses 

to the skin by adding the gamma dose to the 

converted electron dose, which is that beta dose.

The reason that's important is because based on 

how OTIB-17 works for determining missed dose, 

it's not necessarily that there's a zero in the beta 

information that would trigger you to do a missed 

dose. 

But OTIB-17 has a comparison of zeroes for the 

open window and shielded portions of the 

monitoring so that if you're talking about open 

window, that's not just the beta. 
67

That would be the beta plus the deep, that's the 

whole idea of the skin, because everything is getting 

through. There's no shielding. 

So, in open window zero as well as a deep zero, it's 

a determination of whether there's a zero in each of 

those and each and/or both of those is how OTIB-17 

determines whether a missed dose is to be 

assigned. 

And in a case such as Batelle, when you add 

together the beta result and the deeps, you have to 

add those together to determine whether the open 

window is a zero or not. 

And then do the OTIB-17 process based on that. So, 

that's why there seems to be a little bit of difference 

there because we don't assign it just on the beta 

result itself. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, I don't have any questions. 

Other people? Anybody? Or shall we approve?

Member Clawson: I'm good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Member Lockey: I'm good.

Member Beach: I'm good as well, thanks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. Now we'll go onto the 

very last one of the six, the Oak Ridge one. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, just give me a second to pull it 

up. Can everyone see that?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I have it.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, great. This is a case we worked 

at both K-25 and Y-12. They had a fairly short 

employment period at K-25 and several decades of 

employment at Y-12. 

They were diagnosed with more than one cancer 

and you'll see that listed here on Table 2-2. Now, 
68

going up, you'll see the summary of the doses that 

were assigned by both NIOSH and SC&A. 

Overall, we're fairly close though there are some 

differences. But both of our POCs ended up below 

50 percent and on Table 1-2 you'll see the POCs 

highlighted. So, fairly close and we both came to 

the denial decision. 

Moving on to Page 10 in Table 2-3, you'll see the 

summary of SC&A and NIOSH's assumptions. 

Again, the dashes simply mean that SC&A did 

exactly the same thing as NIOSH so anything 

highlighted on the left column there would be 

differences that we made. 

And for the most part, we used a lot of the same 

assumptions. You'll see the biggest differences that 

we highlighted here are that NIOSH used their DR 

workbooks and SC&A does not use those. And there 

are some differences in distribution types.

There is a fairly large difference that we'll talk about 

in the internal dose and although we used similar 

assumptions for internal dose, it doesn't show up 

here necessarily. There are some differences in 

those that we'll discuss.

So, starting on the top of Page 12, first for K-25 

recorded in this dose, both SC&A and NIOSH did not 

locate any recorded dose or zero dosimetry record. 

So, neither assigned any missed or recorded dose to 

the K-25 employment period.

For Y-12, SC&A and NIOSH used largely the same 

assumptions, 100 percent, 30-250 keV photons, the 

same dose conversion factors. The difference here 

being that NIOSH used the Weibull distribution for 

one of the cancers and SC&A instead assigned a 

Kant distribution and that does change the doses 

assigned. But very modest differences in doses. 

Moving on to Section 3.3, the Y-12 recorded shallow 

dose, both SC&A and NIOSH assumed shallow dose 
69

100 percent, greater than 15 keV electrons. 

No shallow dose was assigned to some of the 

organs based on their location in the body. We both 

assumed a close attenuation factor and both 

assigned the same doses in that situation.

Section 3.4, Y-12 missed photon dose, both SC&A 

and NIOSH again used very close or the same 

assumptions. The difference in this would simply be 

that NIOSH used a Monte Carlo approach and SC&A 

instead assigned a log-normal distribution, which 

results in very modest differences in doses. 

For unmonitored photon dose, the E was not 

monitored the early periods at Y-12 and K-25. Both 

SC&A and NIOSH used the data in OTIB-54 and 

OTIB-26 and did not assign unmonitored periods 

each time. 

So, Section 3.5.1, which is the K-25 unmonitored 

period doses, SC&A and NIOSH again used very 

similar assumptions, the same dose correction 

factors, the same energy ratios. 

The only difference in this that we could find was 

modest rounding differences when we were prorating our doses, which resulted in very modest 

differences. 

The exact same thing happened for Y-12 

unmonitored period. SC&A and NIOSH both used 

the 50 percent coworker model, we just rounded 

slightly differently for our partial years of 

employment which resulted in very modest 

differences in the dose that was assigned. 

For unmonitored shallow dose in Section 3.6 on 

Page 13, we both assigned unmonitored shallow 

dose to the skin to account for potentially -- sorry --

we both assigned dose to this organ. 

And again, rounding differences which came to prorating for several years of employment. Now, the 

first difference that we see comes from our 
70

occupational medical dose, which is on Page 14 in 

Section 3.7. 

NIOSH assumed an annual X-ray for every year of 

employment, whereas SC&A instead only assigned 

X-rays to the years that we actually had records. 

So, NIOSH assigned more scans than SC&A. 

When you look at the annual scans that were 

assigned, they're identical other than one year had 

two scans so SC&A did assign a higher dose to that 

year. 

And then the second difference would be that 

NIOSH assigned a PFG scan in one year for the time 

that the EE was employed at K-25. And that's based 

on guidance in the OTIB or the K-25 activity. 

SC&A did not assign this scan because there was no 

records in the actual EE file. Okay, and for our 

ambient dose, neither SC&A nor NIOSH assigned 

ambient dose because we assigned mismeasured 

and coworker dose during all periods of employment 

for K-25 and Y-12. 

Moving on to Page 15, our internal dose section, 

where we get a little interesting. For our Y-12 

intakes NIOSH and SC&A modeled almost exactly 

the same intakes with a difference of a percentage 

point using the same time periods and the same 

solubility types. 

And we come up with the same intake rates; 

however, SC&A's doses are different than the 

NIOSH-assigned doses. 

Our doses are higher and the only difference we 

could really find came from SC&A used the 

equivalent dose calculator whereas NIOSH assigned 

those using the CADW workbook. And we do believe 

that has to be discussed because we couldn't figure 

out what the difference was. 

In Section 4.2 at the bottom of Page 15, and 

moving on to Page 15, it discusses our uranium 
71

intakes and here we do have some differences in 

the way we address them. 

And I'll just skip ahead to Section 4.2.3, which 

discusses those differences. NIOSH assumed an 

acute intake with solubility types both S and Type F, 

whereas SC&A only assigned Type F. 

NIOSH assumed that there was an acute intake that 

happened in 1966 and SC&A only assumed that a 

missed dose occurred during this time period. 

And then NIOSH began this uranium dose at the 

start of the EE's employment to account for their K25 intakes, whereas SC&A limited the uranium 

intake to the time that they actually worked at Y12. And so they began in a later year. 

NIOSH also modeled their doses in the 

CADW whereas SC&A used their equivalent dose 

calendar calculator. 

Moving on to Section 4.3 which is on Page 17, both 

SC&A and NIOSH assigned environmental intakes 

that both used the Y-12 intake and we both came 

up with a dose of less than 1 millirem. So we were 

the same there. 

For K-25 coworker intakes, there were no bioassay 

records for the EE and the DOE or DOL files. They 

were dual filed, though SC&A assigned a 50th 

percentile coworker uranium intakes for that period 

of time. 

NIOSH did not assign K-25 coworker model dose for 

that time because they instead assigned missed 

uranium to that time period. So, it's just a different 

way that we approached the problem. 

And then Section 4.5 on the bottom of Page 17, our 

radiological incident section, both CR reports 

mention that the EE stated that they had some high 

bioassay results and those were already included in 

the dose reconstruction and we assigned them 
72

there. So, no changes were made to either as a 

result of that.

Additionally, NIOSH mentioned that the EE had 

expressed some concerns regarding exposure to 

several non-radioactive chemicals, and that was 

mentioned but no changes were made. SC&A also 

brought up that the EE had mentioned a criticality 

incident that happened in the building and several 

possible incidents that they believe they might have 

been exposed to, but no additional changes were 

made to the dose reconstruction. 

Okay, on Page 19 is our new section on professional 

judgment. And here we see that the largest 

professional judgments that were made was the 

decision to assign an annual X-ray versus only the 

recorded X-rays. 

And we see this very frequently. NIOSH assigned an 

annual, SC&A limited theirs to only the X-rays that 

appeared in the record. And then the second 

professional judgment issue would be the K-25 

coworker intakes. 

SC&A assigned coworker intakes to a certain time 

period and NIOSH assigned missed uranium, again 

differences in professional judgment. 

So, in summary, the POCs and calculated doses are 

listed here in Table 6-1. You'll see that our POCs 

were very close. We both were less than 50 percent 

and we've gone over the differences in our 

approaches. 

Are there any questions? 

Chair Kotelchuck: Questions, anybody?

Member Clawson: No.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't have any. 

Member Beach: None here -- a discussion on some 

of the differences that were pointed out.
73

Mr. Siebert: And I could hit on some of those.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, if you would? 

Member Clawson: I'm sure you can, Scott. 

Mr. Siebert: Happy to help. First is the discussion of 

the medical X-rays, and I agree this is a very 

convoluted process because it has to do with the 

fact that Y-12 does not give us their medical X-ray 

records. 

So, historically and what's in the TBD is to assign 

annual X-rays without any other information. Now, 

what makes it kind of convoluted is the fact that the 

individuals would transfer from Y-12 to one of the 

other Oak Ridge sites. 

If their records went with them, usually they did, 

the medical X-rays went along with that and when 

we request it from, say, in this case K-25 or 

whatever, we can actually get Y-12's X-ray records 

from the other site's response. 

So there has been a discussion on our side as to 

whether those are complete or not. During the 

timeframe this claim was established, we had gone 

on the claimant-favorable assumption side of we 

didn't believe they were complete so we went with 

annual X-rays unless you got further information 

that gave you a good indication it was complete. 

We've actually looked at that more closely and 

we've been able to start requesting medical X-rays 

from Y-12 more frequently. And since we are able to 

do that, our present process, which is, once again, 

documented in the DR guidance document, is to 

determine if we believe if it's complete. 

And if there seems to be gaps in the monitoring 

record, we can request those records from Y-12. So 

I guess what I'm saying is at the time we did the 

claim, we were following the direction that we -- we 

were using the TBD so that we used annual X-rays. 
74

These days we would probably do it much more 

closely to SC&A's process based on the fact that we 

believe it's probably a full record of the medical Xrays that we got from the other site. 

So it's one of those that I think was probably a 

professional judgment difference when we did it and 

SC&A did it. 

But today, based on the new monitoring records 

and what we document, I don't think it would be a 

professional judgment day. I think we'd all be 

following the same process. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Mr. Siebert: And the other one is dealing with the K25 missed versus coworker dose. 

And this is, once again, another one that's a little 

unusual because the individual was working at K-25 

at the co-op for a short amount of time and then 

worked at Y-12 for an extended period of time in 

multiple roles, and only has bioassay monitored 

during their later Y-12 -- during the Y-12 

employment. 

So there's really two methodologies you could apply 

for those. And strangely enough, it's exactly what 

we both did, two different methodologies there. 

Sorry, I'm looking for a message that I have, there 

it is. I wrote something up here and I wanted to 

make sure I was looking at it. 

So SC&A made the assumption was because it was 

an earlier timeframe and there was not monitoring, 

and we do have coworker for K-25. They assigned 

the coworker for K-25 during that brief period of 

employment, and then the bioassay was used for 

the Y-12. 

What we did is we actually took the bioassay in the 

Y-12 and made the assumption it's limiting for all 

employment prior to that because as long as you're 
75

making assumptions that there was an exposure 

during the whole timeframe, later bioassay will 

actually limit it. 

So we took the employment all the way back to the 

beginning of the K-25 era and assigned it all as 

missed dose. 

We had two different ways to do it, I do think it's 

probably professional judgment, but I believe it's 

probably closer from the way we document things in 

OTIB-60 to do it the way we did because OTIB-60 

does have a discussion about using later bioassay to 

limit all earlier employment timeframes, exposure 

timeframes. 

So a lack of bioassay sample for several years 

wouldn't necessarily be considered as them being 

unmonitored because they can put an upper bound 

on the intake. 

So what we did is we compared what the overall 

differences were and they're relatively close. 

SC&A is actually lower than ours, and another piece 

of it that could be done from the process of how 

SC&A did it was to say that if coworker was used on 

an earlier timeframe, technically speaking, we could 

strip that information out of later bioassay because 

we don't want to double-count. 

Once again, it's one of those where I think it's 

probably professional judgment. It's not 

unreasonable to call it that, but I think the 

documentation that we have in OTIB-60 probably 

defends our process a little bit more.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright, questions, 

anybody? Comments? Other questions or 

comments? I hear nothing. 

Member Clawson: I don't have any, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, and I don't. Others? 

Anybody?
76

Member Beach: None here, Dave. 

Member Valerio: None here, Dave. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. So, let me ask, I'm not 

sure, I looked over --

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry, Dr. Kotelchuck, this is Scott. 

I apologize profusely, I just realized I forgot to 

address one other thing. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Sure, I'm glad to. Go ahead. 

Mr. Siebert: Because I was looking at the 

professional judgment bullets and I forgot about the 

other thorium issue. There actually is a reason for 

that. 

It has to do with -- actually, I'm going to turn this 

up. Liz, do you mind talking about this? I'd rather 

turn it over to Liz Brackett, our internal dosimetry 

guru. 

Ms. Brackett: Alright. So I believe that this issue 

has come up in the past. It has to do with IMBA and 

the way it was coded. It's based on earlier modules 

that were developed when previous ICRP models 

were in effect and when it was updated for the ones 

currently in there, it wasn't capable of implementing 

some of the new modeling that took place. 

In particular, it has issues with nuclides that have 

long decay chains that have a number of different 

progeny and it doesn't handle them correctly. 

This was documented in the documentation and 

there's also a section in OTIB-60, which is our 

internal dose reconstruction guidance document. 

So it incorrectly calculates doses for several nuclides 

including thorium-228, 229, and 232. So it will 

correctly calculate intakes but the dose calculations 

are not correct and so IMBA is not appropriate to 

use for these calculations. 

And that's why we used CAD in those cases, the 
77

values in CAD were taken using DCAL, which is 

software that's written by Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. 

And we did several calculations for input into CAD. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Where's the list of those radionuclides 

that can't handle for that?

Ms. Brackett: It's in OTIB-60, Section 3.2.6.4. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Thank you. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, now, I looked over the 

Set 25 materials that you sent, the issue resolution 

materials. What I saw was primarily observations, 

right? You had a number of observations?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. 

Chair Kotelchuck: I didn't see too many -- those are 

Category 1? Are those items you want to talk about 

or do you think we can talk about?

Ms. Gogliotti: Absolutely. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, then would it be 

reasonable -- it's a quarter after 2:00 p.m., a little 

after -- to take a 15-minute break now and then go 

onto those?

Ms. Behling: Dave, this is Kathy Behling.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes?

Ms. Behling: I'm sorry, can I ask a question? Maybe 

I missed something, but can we just go back to one 

of the lines very quickly? 

I believe when Ron was making his presentation on 

the Paducah and Hanford line, he mentioned 

something about a 35 percent -- we couldn't 

account for under the Hanford neutron coworker. 

Was that addressed by NIOSH? Are you in a position 
78

to address that? I didn't hear an explanation for 

that and I was just curious. 

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. No, I apologize, when I 

was going through this I just did not catch that in 

the report. 

I was looking at the major points and I just totally 

missed that one so I'm having people look into that. 

And if I find an answer in a relatively short amount 

of time, I'll let you know. 

Ms. Behling: Okay, I was just curious. I didn't think 

that was answered. Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good, and you'll talk 

together at some point. So, folks, if we have Set 25 

issues, do we want to start with that or do people 

want to take a break now? Or do you want to work 

on it a little bit and then take a break later?

Member Clawson: I'm good to keep going. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. We'll keep going, folks. 

Member Beach: I'm okay either way, Dave.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, well, let's keep going then 

because we took care of the other lines, the last 

few, very quickly. Alright, good, who will be 

addressing that?

Ms. Gogliotti: That would be me.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Review Cases from Sets 25

Ms. Gogliotti: I have our tracking matrix pulled up 

here on the screen and I'll just go through the Type 

1 issues if that seems like the easiest. 

Mr. Siebert: I'm sorry, this is Scott, I apologize. I 

haven't seen this before so I'm just curious, is this 

doing the DOL or the AWE?

Ms. Gogliotti: This is the DOE sites.
79

Mr. Siebert: Okay, thank you very much, I 

appreciate that. 

Ms. Gogliotti: We haven't started the AWE matrix 

yet. NIOSH is working on getting us responses and 

we don't have the full group yet so those have not 

been started yet. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, so this one looks pretty similar 

to the ones we've been using for the past sets. I 

just replicated it for this set. 

The first case comes from Hanford and it's Finding 

or Observation Number 1 from Tab Site 28 and the 

observations state that for the IMBA calculations 

SC&A is concerned that NIOSH didn't use the MBA 

over two and instead had to use the MBA value. 

And NIOSH came back and said that they actually 

had used the correct MBA over two value. But the 

convenience actually came from the unit 

conversions. 

SC&A reviewed their cited reference material and 

we found that no unit was listed next to the MDA in 

the workbook that they cited. And so SC&A preps 

wrongly concluded that it was being reported in a 

different unit than it was.

We assumed DPM per day, and it was actually 

micrograms per sample. And then when you apply 

the correction factor or the conversion factor or 

2.02, it was kind of negating the MDA value. 

So, with this one we have confirmed that they did in 

fact use the correct MBA over two, and we 

recommend closure. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good, that sounds like it 

makes sense. Folks can talk and agree on that. 

Shall we close? 

Any questions? 
80

Member Clawson: No. This is Brad.

Member Lockey: No, I'm good.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta, I'm good. 

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, fine. That's good so let's 

agree that that one is resolved. 528, Hanford 528?

Ms. Gogliotti: Correct. Moving onto the next one is 

an INL, 10506 Observation 1, and the observation 

stated that for the years '63 and '64 the DOE 

dosimetry records show blank for the dosimeter 

exchanges. 

And the EE was monitored monthly for those years 

so the number of zero readings we thought should 

have been 12. 

NIOSH responded that for those years the NIOSH 

dosimeter included an X-ray component and 

guidance regarding this was added to the Hanford 

guidance document. 

But that was added after the case was tasked to 

SC&A, so it wasn't in the guidance document that 

we were provided. And so it's been addressed and 

we recommend closure. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good here. 

Member Lockey: I'm good, too. 

Member Valerio: Loretta, I'm good. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is in the same 

case, Observation 2, and it states that NIOSH 

assigned an on-site external ambient dose using a 

log-normal distribution, however, the Proc 60 

procedure for Hanford indicates that NIOSH defined 

a normal distribution with the standard deviation of 

30 percent. 

And NIOSH indicated that they had actually used 

the Monte Carlo method of combining distributions 

for ambient dose. 
81

That has been updated since Proc 60 was issued 

and that allows for the use of normal distribution. 

SC&A did confirm that the uncertainty section in the 

DR does state that they had used the Monte Carlo 

approach; however, we're just going to reiterate the 

importance of updating our guidance document so 

that these inconsistencies don't happen. 

And we recommend closure. 

Member Lockey: I concur. 

Member Valerio: I'm good, this is Loretta. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. The next one is a Kansas City 

Plant case, Tab 512, Observation 1. Sorry, I lost it 

here. Section 6.5, uncertainty in the TBD refers to 

Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 for guidance of unmonitored 

dose and missed dose. However, this is the 

carryover from a previous revision of the TBD and is 

not applicable to the current TBD. NIOSH decided 

that the cross-reference was incorrect and needs to 

be updated. 

It doesn't affect the doses or the uncertainties that 

were applied, so there's also no changes to the dose 

reconstruction and so SC&A recommends closure. 

Member Lockey: Jim, I'm good with this.

Member Beach: Josie, I'm good with it as well. 

Member Valerio: Loretta, I'm good. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, same case, Finding Number 1. 

Our finding states that NIOSH did not use the 

current TBD revision to assign X-ray exam doses. 

The X-ray exam organ doses contained in the 

workbook and used by NIOSH to assign 

occupational medical doses are not the ones listed 

in the TBD. 
82

The current revision, Rev 1, of the TBD was issued 

in January of 2017 and the case was revised in May 

of 2017. The X-ray exam organ doses were entered 

into the IREP table with the normal distribution with 

the standard uncertainty of 30 percent. 

NIOSH does agree that X-ray exam doses were not 

in agreement with the current TBD, which is Rev 1. 

The use of the X-ray dose is in accordance with the 

TBD and would result in a decrease in X-ray doses 

for each of the cancers involved. 

NIOSH does agree the TBD was issued in January of 

2017, but the tool was revised on May 1st of 2017. 

This claim was reworked in April so X-ray doses 

increased for some organs. 

There is a PER set to rework all claims done in 

2017, prioritizing those that were done in early 

2017. So that will be addressed with the PER. 

So we would recommend closure. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good with it.

Member Beach: Do we know when those will be 

reworked? Or Scott, do you have any timeframe on 

that or how many there are? 

Mr. Siebert: We have a bunch of different PERs 

we're working right now. I just don't have that 

information at my fingertips right now. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. 

The next one is from LANL and it's Tab 523, 

Observation 1, and it reads through the course of 

the review, SC&A identified that LANL external dose 

has two tables identified as Table 4. 

There's no impact on the DR, however, it should be 

corrected. And it should read that the table 

numbering needs to be corrected, and they will do 

so in the next revision. 

As a result, we recommend closure. 
83

Member Clawson: I'm good with this.

Member Beach: I agree. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, and I think we can wipe out the 

next one here. It's from Tab 524, also a LANL case, 

and it's identical to the last one so I think we can 

close that out. 

Member Beach: Great.

Member Clawson: Great. This is Brad. 

Member Lockey: Great. This is Jim.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, same case, Observation 2,

NIOSH used an N/P ratio of 8.15 for the years prior 

to 1981, which corresponds to the 96th percentile 

with N/P ratios calculated for those years presented 

in the TBD. 

Although it's consistent with the LANL guidance 

document, SC&A believes this value was implausibly 

large due to the EE job title and other records. 

The N/P ratio calculated for later years were 

significantly lower even at the 95th percentile. 

And although we think it's overestimating we can 

see that these were claimant-favorable, and it 

resulted in a missed dose larger than the EE could 

have received, especially in an uncompensated 

case. 

NIOSH indicated that this ratio was based on an 

agreement with NIOSH and the LANL Work Group to 

address uncertainties from this information. 

However, this observation was more just to 

highlight the large doses that would result from that 

assumption. The EE I believe had several rem 

assigned to them during this time period. 

So, we recommend closure. 

Member Clawson: Rose, could you explain that a 
84

little bit more to me? I know you're closing, I just 

kind of got lost there a little bit. So I didn't 

understand the bigger and the smaller doses on 

that. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, so NIOSH assumed an N/P ratio 

of 8.5 for the years prior to 1981. So the EE has no 

neutron monitoring records so they're taking the 

photon records and applying that ratio to them to 

come up with the neutron dose. 

So every photon is recorded 8.15 times more 

neutron doses assigned, which results in a much 

higher dose for someone who is unmonitored. And 

this particular worker was not a radiation worker so 

they were assigned large doses. 

Member Clawson: And you guys are recommending 

to close this one?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's claimant-favorable but this is an 

uncompensated case so technically NIOSH can --

even if this wasn't following your guidance, they 

could have signed that. 

Member Clawson: I understand now. I appreciate 

that. I'm good with this. 

Mr. Katz: But a question for the Subcommittee or 

for the staff, Scott, whatever, it doesn't matter if it's 

producing implausibly high doses. 

Isn't this a matter that should be discussed by the 

LANL Work Group about how to better handle these 

kinds of cases? Or is this just the only practical way 

to deal with these cases? 

Mr. Calhoun: I don't think that this one was 

implausibly high because if the guy was monitored 

we would have assigned that ratio and it would have 

been all great. 

So, it just was a bit of an overestimate that 

probably shouldn't have been an overestimate in a 

best-estimate kind of case. 
85

I don't know what date this was done so off the top 

of my head I can't say. It seems like we probably 

wouldn't do that now.

Mr. Siebert: Grady, I'm sorry, this is Scott. Actually, 

we would and I'm sorry to interrupt you there. 

But the problem is this is based on suggestions and 

agreements with the LANL Board Work Group, and 

this was the way that the Work Group in agreement 

with NIOSH determined that we had to move 

forward with how we could assign neutrons during 

this timeframe at this site. 

So pretty much this is the methodology that has 

been through the Board and the Work Group that's 

been agreed upon. That's my understanding of the 

situation. 

Mr. Katz: Right. Well, I think Rose mentioned 

something along those lines. 

So, I guess I just question whether -- so as far as 

the LANL Work Group is concerned, this is 

appropriately conservative given some other 

problems that they had at that period? Is that what 

you're saying? 

Mr. Siebert: That would be my understanding. I'm 

not part of the Work Group, but that is my 

understanding.

Mr. Katz: Okay, so then the Subcommittee needs to 

say we raised this with the LANL Work Group. 

Mr. Calhoun: Scott, I'm glad you're out there. 

Ms. Gogliotti: There is another issue that's almost 

identical to this that was compensated though that 

we'll get to shortly. Or if we just want to go to it 

now, I can find it here. I'll get to it naturally.

Mr. Katz: Okay, that's fine, we don't have to get to 

it now. But when we get to it, if LANL has 

considered all of the factors, the LANL Work Group, 

and decided that this is actually appropriate then so 
86

be it. 

That's why we have the issue resolution process 

with the Work Groups. Anyway, so I think we can 

carry on for now. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, the next one is also a LANL 

case, Tab 525, Observation 1. It notes that the EE 

had dosimetry bioassay records where we had a 

record of an injury report dating beyond the 

covered period of employment that was established 

by DOL. 

These records spanned from '95 through 2000. They 

appear indistinguishable from the other LANL 

records. When NIOSH was doing their dose 

reconstruction, they discovered these records and 

contacted the DOL office. 

DOL responded that from 2001 to 2010 the EE had 

verified employment at LANL at the Los Alamos area 

office, which is not a covered facility. However, 

these dates don't overlap with the dates in question. 

Despite this potential oversight, the case was 

compensated and the inclusion of these additional 

records wouldn't change the compensation decision. 

NIOSH responded that the data were unnecessary 

for the claim because it was compensated but 

agreed that a statement should have been added to 

the DR draft stating that an extended employment 

was not necessary to complete the partial dose 

reconstruction. 

So on that we recommend closure. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good with that. 

Member Lockey: Jim, I too am also good. 

Member Beach: Josie, I agree also. 

Member Valerio: Loretta, I agree. Rose, can you 

speak up just a little bit, please?
87

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes, sorry. Okay, same case, Tab 

525, Observation 2. In April of 1960, the EE had a 

positive neutron dosimeter reading. 

NIOSH assigned this dose to this time period but did 

not acknowledge the positive results or find a 

recorded neutron dose for the time period. 

Prior to 1981, the DR guidance document 

reconstruction used the MP ratios. Although it's 

uncommon, the DRs are supposed to apply the 

measured neutron dose when it predicts a higher 

dose than the N/P ratio. 

It was a compensated case, not including that this 

did not adversely affect the compensation decision. 

NIOSH responded that it was a partial dose 

reconstruction due to the fact that it was above 50 

percent, so it was acceptable to not accept this 

positive neutron dose and instead assign missed 

neutron dose based on the N/P ratio. 

And on that we'd recommend closure. 

Member Beach: Agreed. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I'm good with it.

Member Lockey: Me too, Jim.

Member Valerio: Loretta, agreed. 

Ms. Gogliotti: This is actually the one --

Mr. Katz: Loretta, this is just to remind you guys to 

remember your conflicts. 

Member Valerio: Yes. 

Mr. Katz: Thanks. 

Ms. Gogliotti: This is actually the next one. It's what 

I was thinking of before I was looking for different 

language than what actually showed up here. 

Same case, Observation 3, and it reads that 
88

although the use of the 95th percentile for other 

operations is consistent with the NIOSH guidance 

recommendations, we questioned its applicability to 

the EE. 

There were no positive neutron dose, no photon 

exposures during the time period, yet NIOSH 

assigned 17 rem, so roughly 41 percent of the total 

exposure in this neutron dose. 

Nothing in that EE's record suggested that it would 

have resulted in an annual missed neutron dose in 

excess of 3 rem. 

We understood that it was claimant-favorable and 

following the guidance document, but we question 

how much of a best estimate it was in a 

compensated case. 

NIOSH responded basically the same response as 

before. The use of the ratio is based on agreement 

with NIOSH and the Advisory Board, LANL Work 

Group, to address uncertainties associated with the 

transition from film to TLD dosimeters. 

Again, this was just intended to highlight that a 

large dose could be assigned here. 

And we recommend closure. 

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I agree with it. 

Member Lockey: Jim Lockey, I agree. 

Member Beach: This is Josie, I'm just contemplating 

it but I think I agree as well, especially in light of 

the work group having discussed this and agreed 

with this. 

Mr. Katz: Okay, that makes sense. I'm just curious. 

I haven't heard Dave speak up in a while. Are you 

still on? Dave Kotelchuck.

Chair Kotelchuck: I've been talking.

Mr. Katz: You've been talking on mute.
89

Chair Kotelchuck: I certainly have obviously. Well, 

that shows you how much my input is worth. 

However, I have agreed with every single vote that 

we cast so far. Thank you for telling me. 

Mr. Katz: Yeah, sure.

Chair Kotelchuck: A truck was going by and I cut 

things off a little bit. Good, thank you. We're just 

finishing the 525 Observation 3. Josie was 

commenting.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: And now we'll go on to the 

Hanford 529, Observation 1, and I think some folks 

are exempted.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This is actually Hanford and 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The findings 

states the observation that the external dose 

parameter table presented on page 7 of the DR 

report incorrectly lists the monitoring period. The 

calculation is performed by NIOSH correctly, just 

not reflected in the table on the DR report. 

NIOSH responded that this error was typographical. 

The dose reconstruction was a partial assessment 

assigning dose only to the EE's monitored periods of 

employment. 

The doses were not assigned to the EE's 

unmonitored years of employment as an

underestimating approach. A correction of the 

typographical error doesn't impact the total doses 

assigned or the PoC, so SC&A recommends closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Member Valerio: This is Loretta. I agree.
90

Chair Kotelchuck: Good. Alright.

Now 511, Observation 1.

Ms. Gogliotti: It reads because of the substantial 

time difference between the original records request 

in 2012 and the second DR revision in 2017, SC&A 

believes that it would have been prudent for NIOSH 

to submit a second records request to see if any of 

the EE's records had become available.

NIOSH indicated there was no need to request 

additional records but that the previously provided 

records they considered to be complete. The 

telephone interview indicated that there were no Xrays performed on the individual.

SC&A understands this logic. However, we find it 

challenging to identify when new records became 

available without an additional records request. We 

do recommend closure but we just wonder what 

would have triggered additional records other than 

additional employment being added.

Chair Kotelchuck: Can somebody answer that?

Mr. Calhoun: This is Grady. I think only if we had 

some indication that the records were routinely 

incomplete. I'm not aware of this specific case so I 

don't know what we based our decision on to say 

they were complete, but if it looked like everything 

was there up to the date of diagnosis, but I don't 

know. I don't know that part of it.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I would agree that that is 

the thought process. There were no indications that 

the site was adding any additional records. There's 

really no reason for us to have gone back unless 

there was additional employment, and then clearly 

we would do that.

Chair Kotelchuck: Does that resolve the issue?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. So then we should close 
91

that. Do I hear anything further? Is anybody 

concerned or have further questions? No? Okay. 

Then let's approve and go on to the Rocky Flats 

case.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This is Rocky Flats and Sandia, 

Tab 518, Observation 1. It reads according to Table 

3-2 of OTIB-79, Rev. 1, both RFP and F&L are both 

duty sites where it is assumed X-ray exams are 

performed on site.

The TBD indicates that a pre-hire and annual X-ray 

exam were common to RFP. The TBD indicates that 

a pre-hire and some annual X-ray exams were 

possible at F&L. 

Although these X-ray doses would have been 

relatively small based on the locations of the 

cancers, it would be helpful for NIOSH to clarify why 

they were not considered in this dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH responded that the indicated 

records were requested and no records were 

located, so on that we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I guess there just wasn't 

further data available. Alright. Good. Again, if there 

are any questions. Otherwise, we'll approve. 

And let's see. The next one is Sandia.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. Sandia, Tab 522, Observation 1. 

According to NIOSH's Sandia/Livermore workbook, 

the right-back shoulder. For X-ray data the correct 

dose for a PA test exam for the right-back shoulder 

is stated there which was assigned in the DR. 

According to the TBD and OTIB 6, it appears it 

should have been the entrance skin dose instead. 

It's not obvious why that difference existed. NIOSH 

indicated that the observation was correct. The 

incorrect value for the X-ray dose was in the tool 

under the X-ray data tab and propagated through 

the IREP worksheet. 

They investigated the tool and determined that 
92

when the information was created for the tool, there 

were cut and paste errors that were not noted 

during the QA process. These errors have been 

since corrected, and the QA process for the tool 

reviews have been updated specifically to document 

the review of this type of error.

The error was based on the site-specific calculation 

for medical X-ray doses and doesn't impact the 

tools for other sites. Since this claim was already 

over 50 percent and it resulted in a slight increase 

in X-ray dose, it did not change the overall 

determination for the claim, and thus we 

recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Let me ask. Was this not a 

finding?

Mr. Katz: Right. That's my question, too.

Chair Kotelchuck: There was an error found and 

corrected.

Ms. Gogliotti: I do agree that it should be a finding.

Mr. Katz: Good, okay.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. There's just one other 

thing I want to reiterate. The matrix on the screen 

doesn't add the last piece of information that we 

had in there. We actually did search through all the 

previous claims that use that tool and ensured that 

none of them were impacted by the change there.

We did not find any problems with any of the other 

claims. I just wanted to point out that we did go --

we went the next step to ensure no other claims 

were impacted by this issue.

Chair Kotelchuck: Excellent, as is customarily done 

when there is a finding like that. Good, I'm glad you 

put that in. It's on the record now.

Okay. Now the 522. Again, Sandia 522, Observation 

-- this would be 1. I don't know whether you would 

change -- are you going to change the numbering?
93

Ms. Gogliotti: We do not change the numbering 

because that would require us to go back into the 

actual report to change numbering so we just 

change it --

Chair Kotelchuck: Just call it Observation 2. The 

count is correct, yeah. It will be correct. Okay. Do 

go ahead then.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one is from the same case, 

and it's just a slightly different organ that we're 

talking about. I would recommend following the 

same.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right, which would make this 

Finding 2. It is the same issue.

Ms. Gogliotti: Mm-hmm.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. This will be changed to a 

finding.

Mr. Katz: Wait, can I understand are they actually 

findings of the same issue for the same case?

Ms. Gogliotti: They are different.

Chair Kotelchuck: Different part of the body.

Mr. Katz: I mean, is this the same tool problem?

Ms. Gogliotti: It's the same tool problem. One is for 

a PA test exam and the other one is for an AP exam, 

so they could be combined.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Really it's one finding; the tool's got 

a problem that has caused multiple problems.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Okay. Ms. Gogliotti: This 

is the same case, Sandia 522, Finding 1. The finding 

had to do with an error in transferring dose into 

IREP. NIOSH states the missed photon dose for 

Lawrence Livermore was entered twice as part of 
94

the neutron dose. There was an error in changing 

the IREP input and the correct doses result from the 

same outcomes of the claim. 

It was a cut and paste issue in June of 2018 and 

implemented a part of the IREP add-on called IREP 

Site Merge. IREP sheets for an individual site are 

still prepared within a site-specific tool. 

Once all the IREP sheets are prepared for the IREP, 

the Site Merge takes all the IREP sheets and 

generates a single sheet. This tool was created 

specifically to eliminate the copy and paste errors 

from multiple site claims. 

We have not seen this add-on yet since they did 

implement it right around the time of our 25th set 

completion. I don't know if we are going to see it in 

the current set that we're working on, but we 

request if there's any additional documentation that 

NIOSH could provide, that would be helpful to us.

Mr. Katz: So if this is a finding, it's really a quality 

control error. Right?

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, it was an error -- yes, it was an 

error in moving doses into IREP that resulted from 

copy and paste.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So noted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Going back to this and the 

previous finding, the operation that was turned into 

a finding, they are both categorized now as QA. 

Right, Rose?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Oak Ridge.

Ms. Gogliotti: Moving on to the next one, Oak Ridge 

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Tab 502, Observation 1. 

SC&A found that NIOSH listed the incorrect year of 

1975 into the IREP table for the organs that were 

done in this case. The year should have been listed 

as '82 instead of '75. 
95

The dose of 16 millirems missed photon dose was 

correctly entered, but the error did not occur in 

1982 in the skin entries. NIOSH agrees this was an 

error. The PoC didn't change as a result of this, so 

we do recommend closure.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I'm good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: I'm a little confused. 

Ms. Gogliotti: So they listed the year 1975 instead 

of 1982 --

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, I see.

Ms. Gogliotti: -- which changes the year that it's 

assigned. It's the same dose.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Is that quality control?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I'm good.

Member Beach: This is Josie. I agree.

Member Valerio: Loretta. I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Lockey: Agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Very good. So let's go to 

Observation 2.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. Same case. SC&A analyzed the 

many potential chronic and acute intakes and 

resulting internal doses to the many cancer sites for 

the radionuclide --- I'm sorry, I am trying to not 

reveal PA information here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Mm-hmm. Good.

Ms. Gogliotti: SC&A then compared the results that 

were contained in the NIOSH files. Overall the 

comparisons match well. One area that was difficult 

to verify though was an intake value listed on the 
96

table in the DR report. 

We analyzed the NIOSH files that may have been 

used for the intake value of 22,000 dpm for an 

acute neptunium intake in the year 1980. Instead 

1,700 dpm is listed on the table. 

This observation was supported by the fact that the 

resulting neptunium doses were approximately 

22,000 divided by 1,700, which is 12.5 times the 

derived by SC&A and NIOSH's accompanying file. 

NIOSH responded that the IMBA run did use 22,000 

instead of 1,700 dpm that should have been used.

This had a result of decreasing the dose by .005 

rem. This error has been reduced by updating the 

Web CAD tool to allow for adjustments to the data 

diagnosis when there is a partial year where the 

previous version did not have this ability. Separate 

IMBA runs were needed for each component.

Additionally, the tool also allows for comparison of 

missed and measured doses without having to do it 

annually. There are tools available to generate 

recycled uranium. Web CAD inputs will 

automatically input the correct intakes based on the 

ratio in the TBD.

We have not seen this Web CAD tool. Is this 

something that SC&A is going to come across in 

future reviews?

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott once again. I can't speak 

to what version of Web CAD that SC&A has available 

to them. I believe it should be the same version 

that we're using which includes this information.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, we will look into that. I've 

never seen a Web CAD but I can email you offline 

and we can figure that out.

Chair Kotelchuck: By the way, is this also not a 

finding?

Ms. Gogliotti: I believe this should be a finding.
97

Mr. Katz: Right. Same issue here.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. That's fine to approve it as 

a finding.

Now, we're getting on to 3:00 Eastern Time. We 

have a couple of options. If people are energetic, 

maybe we could take a break now, or we could skip 

a break and go for another half hour and finish a 

little early if we have a half hour's worth of work. I 

think we do.

Ms. Gogliotti: I don't even think we have a half hour 

of material left.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, that's fine. Then I propose if 

folks do not mind we can --

Member Clawson: Let's cowboy up, Dave. We can 

do it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright. Let's go.

Ms. Gogliotti: The next one here is Observation 3 

from the same case. The internal electron doses 

from tech-99 were dominated by the acute intake in 

1981. However, NIOSH started to increase annual 

electron doses in 1980 in the IREP input table for 

each of the many cancers. This was a year early and 

didn't cover all the assignments.

NIOSH agrees this is an error. The measured dose 

should start in 1980 based on the recycled uranium 

and technetium intakes. As noted, the application 

should begin in 1981. They also noted that the Web 

CAD had been updated and that should reduce this 

type of error in the future, so we'd recommend 

closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. It's marginal as a finding, 

but I think it is probably a finding. It starts 

apparently just implemented something a little 

earlier. I think it's probably a finding.

Ms. Gogliotti: I will leave that up to the work group. 

It's a very marginal, modest issue.
98

Chair Kotelchuck: You are absolutely right. It is 

quite marginal. 

Okay. Other members of the work group, finding or 

observation?

Mr. Katz: The definition of a finding is something 

that impacts dose in a measurable way. So that's 

the question: Does this impact dose measurably?

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, yes, it does.

Mr. Katz: Then it's a finding. Then it's a finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: There are some gray areas in that. 

I agree with Ted.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I think we agree it's a 

finding.

Mr. Siebert: This is Scott. I'm not going to argue. I 

just want to point out, and correct me if I'm wrong, 

I don't believe it had a difference in dose. It was 

just a shifting of the dose by a year.

Chair Kotelchuck: No, but it is -- the year that it 

was done was a year before it should have been 

done.

Mr. Katz: Well, Scott, can you clarify -- I mean, are 

you saying that despite the fact that it's a different 

year it doesn't -- not just for this case but for any 

case, it doesn't impact -- it doesn't actually impact 

dose?

Mr. Siebert: The dose itself is the same. What it is is 

it just got shifted. Instead of starting the total dose 

in 1981, it started it in 1980, so everything was just 

shifted one year earlier. The dose itself isn't 

different.

Ms. Gogliotti: The dose should start in 1980 and 

instead it started in 1981 which is a difference of 

less than a milligram.
99

Chair Kotelchuck: The difference is very small. 

That's not -- could it have -- is there any sense that 

it could have a run-on effect at a later time? I think 

not. I think it wouldn't.

Ms. Gogliotti: The only way this would have a big 

impact is it you were assigning a big dose. They 

have since corrected their Web CAD tool that would 

prevent this from happening in the future.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yeah.

Ms. Gogliotti: In theory it's already been corrected.

Mr. Katz: Right, it's still corrected. That's not the 

issue. The issue is had it not been corrected, would 

it possibly have implications for other cases? It 

sounds like from what you just said that it could 

have had implications if this problem occurred in 

other cases.

Ms. Gogliotti: And a very large dose was being 

assigned.

Chair Kotelchuck: I don't know, I thought they --

it's a finding. And it's been fixed, but it's a finding.

Member Clawson: I think so. This is Brad, I think it's 

still a finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: I agree, Brad. Others? Josie?

Member Beach: I agree, it's a finding.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Member Richardson: I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. I hear we are in agreement 

that it's a finding and approved. And I will admit, 

it's -- it's a close call. It is. It's a gray -- it's gray. 

But I think we have a rule and it fits. Going down at 

the 504, Observation 1?

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes. This is a Y-12, K-25 and X-10 

case. NIOSH applied an electron dose adjustment 
100

factor 4.8 to certain extremity cancers. Based on a 

report entitled Evaluation of Radiation Exposure in 

Metal Preparation Depleted Uranium Process Areas. 

And they give us the SRDB. Available as a file in the 

development folder that contains color and ring 

ratios that average 4.8. This adjustment factor in 

the table was not mentioned in the Y-12 TBD. SC&A 

also questions the derivation of the adjustment 

factor and its use, whether or not it has been 

approved by the Advisory Board. NIOSH agreed that 

the adjustment factor was not mentioned in the Y12 TBD, however in a 91 Y-12 report they cite here, 

it references -- which is referenced in the TBD, had 

been added to the most recent Y-12 dose 

reconstruction guidance document. And they agreed 

to incorporate it into the next Y-12 TBD revision. 

And so on that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. And it was in fact 

mentioned, so it's not an error -- was not left out. 

Fine, I would say let's approve it as an observation.

Member Clawson: This is Brad, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: Agreed.

Member Valerio: Agreed.

Member Lockey: Agreed.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright. Now we will go to 

Observation 2 for this same case.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay. This one -- so the SC&A was 

able to find a file in the EE's folder that contained 

the values used to calculate the extremity dose. 

However, there was no guidance in X-10 or -- TBD, 

or in the X-10 guidance document that instructs the 

dose reconstructor how they should calculate 

extremity dose and how they should select the 

radiation type -- and enter that information into 

IREP. SC&A acknowledges that the TIB guidance 

document, TIB-10, is for workers but believes that 
101

there should have been an X-10 specific guidance 

regarding -- where X-10 would benefit from having 

that sort of guidance. And we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Well, it's certainly an 

observation. And I certainly accept. Okay.

Member Clawson: This is Brad. I am good with it.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay.

Member Beach: I agree as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Good.

Member Valerio: Loretta, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, fine. Observation 3 now.

Ms. Gogliotti: Okay, same case. According to Table 

3-1 in the TBD for the period of EE's employment, 

NIOSH should have assigned a pre-employment PA 

chest X-ray exam, as well as an annual and 

termination exam. This would have only added a 

modest dose, however the dose reconstruction 

report states that medical doses were based on the 

Y-12 occupational medical dose TBD. The guidance 

in the TBD should have been followed.

NIOSH indicates in their response that the relevant 

text -- and they cite the page and location of that --

was a little unclear. And they quote it saying, in the 

complete absence of information about a chest Xray screening protocol and the standard projection, 

including the lack of X-ray records in claim files, the 

pre-employment, annual and termination PA 

radiographic chest X-ray should be assumed for 

workers in screening. They did update the text in 

TIB-6, Rev 5 to re-clarify this X-ray dose 

assignment. Although they believe the process was 

already being implemented with the understanding, 

prior to that being clarified, it was changed. And so 

at that, we would recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Right. As a finding?
102

Ms. Gogliotti: As an observation.

(Pause.)

Ms. Gogliotti: They did it correctly --they clarified, 

basically, a source of -- where you can have 

professional judgment disagree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright. Now on to --

(Pause.)

Ms. Gogliotti: Another Oak Ridge site case. Tab 515, 

Observation 1. SC&A believed that the dose 

reconstruction report could have made more of an 

effort to address any potential under-reporting of 

doses due to the laying on top of a source by 

contacting DOE again for specific information 

regarding the incident. And lacking that, making a 

reasonable estimate of dose that could have been 

received by the EE, since the EE's description of the 

incident seemed reasonable. NIOSH indicated in 

their response that the concern was reviewed by a 

dose reconstructor, and there was no supporting 

evidence of a potential incident that would go in the 

record. NIOSH agrees that the dose reconstructor 

should have requested supplemental information, 

especially had the claim not been over 50 percent, 

which it was. So at that, we recommend closure.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, it's systemic. Okay. Okay, is 

this a quality control? I am getting a little -- slowing 

down.

Mr. Katz: It seems like in this case they've already 

went over the 50 percent level. They don't need to 

get more information. Isn't that what I heard?

Mr. Calhoun: Yes. And actually, just one little word 

difference. It wasn't just the dose reconstructor 

should have requested, it was that the dose 

reconstructor could have requested, had the claim 

not been over ---

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Alright.
103

Mr. Katz: I mean, the normal procedure is to be 

done with it if you get over 50 percent.

Chair Kotelchuck: Oh, right. Sure, sure.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. Seems okay.

Ms. Gogliotti: There is one more and then we are 

done.

Chair Kotelchuck: Nice.

Ms. Gogliotti: Same case. The three Oak Ridge sites 

-- Finding 1. SC&A analyzed the files accompanying 

the report and found that it appeared that the raw 

data table for OTIB-49, the workbook, found NIOSH 

entered Type S annual doses into the Type M 

column of the workbook. And the Type M annual 

doses into the Type S column, which results in the 

workbook using the Type M doses to calculate the 

Type Super S, which is -- said the greater Type S 

annual dose of -- for Type Super S, and a slightly 

lower total dose assignment. According to the 

accompanying files, it appears that the -- oh, I am 

sorry. NIOSH adjusted the annual doses by a factor 

of 4. So basically they were using the wrong column 

in the wrong column of the workbook which resulted 

in Type M being carried forward instead of Type S. 

And NIOSH agrees that there were multiple tool 

entry errors. These issues were specific to the claim 

and not a systematic problem. In fact, that these 

changes were modest and there was no impact on 

the overall computation decision.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. And actually I was getting 

out of face because that's what I was looking up 

before. And I -- this is a quality control error.

Ms. Gogliotti: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: And -- fine. And certainly it's 

been taken care of. And it's a finding. So approve. 

Alright, others agree?
104

Member Clawson: Yes, this is Brad. I agree.

Member Beach: Josie -- I agree as well.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright.

Member Valerio: Yes, I agree.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, fine folks. Well then now 

what we need to do is set another date. And by the 

next time we meet, we will have a draft of the 

report to submit and discuss. And I trust we will 

have some more Category 1s to go through by 

then. This will be two months.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Correct -- I have a question on that. For

two months, not only will we have more Category 

1s, or all of them I guess -- would we have also the 

Category 2s in two months?

(No audible response.)

Mr. Katz: I guess it's a question for Grady and 

Scott. 

Ms. Gogliotti: Well, we were still waiting on the AWE 

Matrix. We will have all the Type 1 and Type 2s, as 

long as they can get us responses so we can 

respond back to them.

Mr. Katz: Right. And that's my question. Are we 

going to have them all within a couple months?

Mr. Calhoun: I will have to check with Mr. Allen. But 

we could always put in some of the AWE stuff in 

there. It seems like that is doable, to me.

Mr. Katz: Yes, okay.

Mr. Calhoun: Of course, I am not doing it.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Katz: Right.
105

(Laughter.)

Mr. Katz: So in terms of timing, Dave?

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: The soonest we need -- we have a Board 

meeting. That's August 21st.

Chair Kotelchuck: Correct.

Mr. Katz: But we could meet earlier in August if that 

works for folks.

Chair Kotelchuck: Well, let's see.

Mr. Katz: I am looking at the week of August --

now, the only issue with having our July 

Subcommittee meeting is that we often try to --

we're also shoehorning in our Work Group meetings 

related to SECs and close to the Board meeting time 

as well. So that would be --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Right.

Mr. Katz: -- taking up one of those days from --

Chair Kotelchuck: And I don't want to give them the 

report, you know, a week before the meeting 

because they have all these other things. I have no 

-- I don't mind submitting the report a little later. 

We certainly want to get it out this year. Right?

Mr. Katz: Good. So how about even just -- the 

Board meeting is the 21st and 22nd. What about, 

for example, the last week in August? Towards the 

end of that week. That would give people plenty of -

- you know, they would be home -- weekend, 

Friday, so on. They would have the beginning of the 

next week --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: -- because that's getting right up 

into Labor Day, folks. Is it not?
106

Mr. Katz: So Labor Day this year, I guess is 

September 2nd.

Chair Kotelchuck: It is.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Beach: Ted, I am actually booked on 

Tuesday through Thursday that last week in August. 

I am only available on Monday or Friday.

Mr. Katz: Okay, forget that idea, then.

Chair Kotelchuck: How about -- how about giving us 

a little break and let's get together in -- in October. 

No, excuse me, September.

Mr. Katz: Yes, what about the week -- what about 

the week of September 9th?

Member Beach: Clear.

Chair Kotelchuck: I think that's ---

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Member Clawson: -- that's good for me.

Chair Kotelchuck: I am not completely clear, but 

let's see. I am checking.

Mr. Katz: Or let me look at the 11th or 12th, 

maybe.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, the 11th or 12th look good 

to me.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: I may be in Vermont for my 

daughter's birthday on the 10th. Let me put it -- I 

can -- I could make the 11th, but I -- the 12th 

would be really good for me.

Mr. Katz: Yes, how about that?
107

Member Beach: That would be fine for me.

Member Lockey: That is good for me, Jim.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay. It sounds like we have a --

we have a date, right?

Mr. Katz: Right. I am going to send a note to Dr. 

Richardson and check with him on that. But -- but 

let's -- let's pencil that in, at least.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, good. Good. And then after 

we do the August Board meeting -- September --

we'll do an October or November Board meeting. 

November probably. Even December.

Mr. Katz: December, December.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes. We have a December Board 

meeting. Can we get -- and the Board approves, 

can we get the report out?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, good. Then I think we 

are in good shape. Now --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Kotelchuck: Alright, very good. And Ted, I am 

going to start working on the revisions that you and 

Jenny worked on tomorrow.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I mean, you also have some 

comments. I gave you which comments.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, and Grady --

Mr. Katz: Grady too.

Chair Kotelchuck: Yes, I do. That -- that we -- I 

think we need to discuss. Although he may well be 

right. Right? I am not arguing that he is wrong. I 

am not convinced that we are wrong. But anyway, 

we will find that out. We will -- and --
108

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Adjourn

Chair Kotelchuck: The process will begin. Okay, 

folks, have a very good Memorial Day weekend.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Yes, thank you. You too.

Member Clawson: Thank you.

Chair Kotelchuck: Okay, very good. Take it easy, 

folks.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 3:18 p.m.)